Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ARMENIA ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
22 March 2002
Share
Commission on Human Rights
58th session
22 March 2002
Afternoon
Non-Governmental Organizations Address Racism Issues
Vartan Oskanyan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia, told the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon that Armenia would like to have normal good neighbourly relations with Turkey with a hopeful eye to the future. But if the crime of genocide was a national tragedy in the last century, its continued denial in this century placed international cooperation and peace at risk.
Mr. Oskanyan called on Azerbaijan to acknowledge that the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh were not going to become Azerbaijanis against their will. The very existence of the Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh had been threatened when a peaceful call for self-determination had turned into a military conflict replete with aerial bombings and missile attacks. The international community was called upon to assist in searching for a just and lasting peace in the region.
Also speaking to the Commission this afternoon were a list of non-governmental organizations who were speaking under the agenda item on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination. Several speakers referred to the difficulties experienced during the World Conference against Racism in Durban. Some of the difficulties mentioned were deflections from the stated goals of the Conference, the language used, the unsavoury State agendas, the politics of self-interest by non-governmental organizations, and some ineptitude on the part of the Secretariat.
However, other speakers said that the World Conference had been a clear success, putting incredibly important issues on the world agenda. They looked forward to the implementation of the Durban document and to the Commission building on the platform of the Conference to ensure stronger and wider protection for all people, without distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference of any kind.
Amongst several other issues, many speakers also addressed the legacy of colonialism, the need for tolerance, the worrying trend of anti-Islamic sentiments, the resurgence of anti-Semitism, the situation in the Middle East, the death penalty, racism in the administration of justice, and racism and discrimination in several regions and countries.
Addressing the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: the Arab Organization for Human Rights, the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, the Asian Cultural Forum on Development, the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Amnesty International, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the International Council of Jewish Women, the International Human Rights Law Group, the December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, Physicians for Human Rights, the Lutheran World Federation, the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Penal Reform International, the Andean Commission of Jurists, the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l'Homme, the International Institute for Peace, the World Federation of Trade Unions, the Indigenous World Association, Pax Romana, the Association for World Education, the World Federation for Democratic Youth, and the African Society of International and Comparative Law. A Representative of the League of Arab States also took the floor.
The Commission will reconvene at 6 p.m. to begin its consideration of the right to development in an evening meeting which will conclude at 9 p.m.
Statements
VARTAN OSKANYAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, said that the Constitution of Armenia and amendments proposed to it protected the rights of all citizens, including minorities, regardless of their national, ethnic, religious and linguistic affiliations. Armenia was modifying its laws on mass media, political parties and non-governmental organizations and was working towards the abolition of the death penalty. Indeed, this year again Armenia would co-sponsor the resolution before the Commission on doing away with capital punishment.
The Minister said that Armenia would like to have normal good neighbourly relations with Turkey with a hopeful eye to the future, rather than an unforgiving eye to the past. But if the crime of genocide was a national tragedy in the last century, its continued denial in this century placed international cooperation and peace at risk. Turkey was called upon to join Armenia in transcending the past in order to allow the region to truly become what it was for centuries: a crossroads, a gateway, a Garden of Eden.
The Minister called on Azerbaijan to acknowledge that the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh were not going to become Azerbaijanis against their will. They were Azerbaijani subjects for the seven Soviet decades and the experience of those years was still with them. They were the "citizens" whose basic human rights were not respected and who were not accorded the dignity of equal economic rights with their Azeri neighbours. The very existence of the Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh had been threatened by an Azerbaijani Government unwilling to provide for that population's right to development and stability. When Armenians rose to call for that right, they received a response that included massacre and deportation. A peaceful call for self-determination had turned into a military conflict replete with aerial bombings and missile attacks. The international community was called upon to assist in searching for a just and lasting peace in the region.
SAAD ALFARARGI (the League of Arab States) said that the Arab League was committed to the struggle against racism and racial discrimination. Colonialism and racism were closely linked and gave rise to the worst problems afflicting our world today. Attempts at hegemony did not augur well for the future. The situation of the Palestinian people came under this item of the agenda due to the racist aspect of the Israeli occupation. Israel must be pressured to work for global peace because this was the only way to bring peace and stability to Israel and the Palestinian people. Foreign occupation was one of the sources of racism and intolerance. Terrorism had no religion or country. Many people had suffered from terrorism, including Arab people, in particular the Palestinian people and this was well before 11 September. The Arab nation had energetically condemned the events of 11 September. The Commission was called upon to denounce racist actions committed under the pretext of combatting terrorism.
GEORGES JABBOUR, of the Arab Organization for Human Rights said that it was a good thing that the recent resolution 1397 had attempted to rectify the situation by envisioning a Palestinian State. It would have been better if the same resolution had declared, in accordance with international law, that this State should be established on the totality of the Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967 and if it had affirmed the basic principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, including the right of every person to return to his country. Some admired the principle of tolerance, but to tolerate must never mean to tolerate violations of human rights.
J.J. KIRKYACHARIAN, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that despite the difficulties in Durban, the Conference needed to be considered as a step forward. Racism threatened all countries and peoples. Since Durban the need for a global analysis had been realized. The procedure to target existing racism was positive even though much remained to be done. The danger of racism was just down the road. Racism was a real danger. Anti-racism non-governmental organizations therefore had a very important task, particularly in the advanced democratic countries. There was a link between the battle of racism and civil society and the necessary preventive measures that were needed. Non-governmental organizations and political leaders had an enormous task before them.
Unfortunately, sometimes States themselves exercised discrimination. As far as racism was concerned, either all people were equal or some were more equal then others. Unfortunately the latter seemed to be adhered to by some States.
JERALD JOSEPH, of the Asian Cultural Forum on Development, said that Malaysia was a country that had carried on a colonial legacy that divided the society into ethnic groupings. For the past 45 years, it had been the Government's choice to perpetuate this practice and this could be seen at all levels of society. Malaysia's history witnessed a civil riot in 1967 that took the lives of hundreds. This event had not been fully investigated to find out who the perpetrators were. Two hundred schools practised segregation by race and that was another shocking revelation of the extent of covert racism in Malaysia. Over 90 per cent of the civil service workforce was staffed by the Malay community. The level of polarization at all levels of society had become an accepted norm by the government and by society. The State had failed to counter racism and racially divisive patterns within society.
H. SHARFELDDIN, of the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, said that the way the powerful countries were fighting terrorism was terrorism itself against the Third World. Bombs and missiles were sent against poor and defenceless peoples, and that was the main base of the phenomenon of international terrorism. The people of the world were astonished by the statement made by the President Bush when he declared open a third World War. Threats to peace had serious consequences and the inhuman outcome of what was actually happening in many regions of the world had become tragic. The representative firmly condemned these acts and said its call had to be heard by the whole world, and especially by the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights.
A. SISIC, of Amnesty International, said that many important issues had been put on the international agenda. Amnesty International had participated actively in the World Conference against Racism, highlighting in particular the impact of racism on the administration of justice. Specific recommendations had been made in order to eliminate racism from the functioning of law enforcement and custodial agencies, the judiciary, and asylum determination systems. In countries where the death penalty was still imposed, the organization called on governments to investigate any disproportionate impact of this penalty on racial, ethnic or national groups.
Governments were called upon to recognize the plight of Dalits, as victims of discrimination based on work and descent. Amnesty International also called on governments to recognize and take action against multiple forms of discrimination, specifically those affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender persons.
SHIMON SAMUELS, of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, said that despite its credentials with the Economic and Social Council, it had been excluded on racist grounds from the Tehran preparatory conference for the World Conference against Racism. It was there that the process of semantic theft and Orwellian double-speech began -where the Holocaust became a series of non-Jewish events, and where anti-Semitism, recognized by the United Nations as directed exclusively against Jews, was assimilated into Arab victimology. Three big lies prevailing in Western colonialism against Jews had been adopted by marginal fanatics in the Arab world: the medieval blood libel, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the denial of the Holocaust. The protest march against racism did not end at Durban Town Hall, but at the Jewish Club synagogue, where demonstrators handed out flyers of Hitler asking "What if I would have won" together with the Arab Lawyers Union caricature pamphlet replete with Jewish-hatred of the Nazi Sturmer.
The Declaration and Plan of Action produced in Durban included an eight-point blueprint of genocidal anti-Semitism: the dismantling of the Jewish State with a call for its implementation by the UN agencies. Simon Wiesenthal had said in the 1920s that he was not so much concerned by the number of Nazis, as by the absent voices of anti-Nazis.
ANDREA COOMBER, of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said that the World Conference against Racism could have made a real impact on monitoring racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance worldwide, and on enforcing existing standards and strengthening mechanisms for human rights protection. However, from its inception the World Conference had been hampered by unsavoury State agendas, the politics of self-interest by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and some ineptitude on the part of the Secretariat. The final document of the World Conference reflected the fact that governments and NGOs became sidetracked by inflammatory text on the Middle East and the downward spiral of the reparations dispute. Engrossed in these matters, delegates were left with insufficient time to consider other pressing issues of racial discrimination. Evaluated against prevailing international standards, the final document had many problems. While the World Conference against Racism had made advances in some areas, such as the treatment of the Roma and concern for racial hatred on the Internet, and had been able to cleverly deal with the slavery issues, millions of victims of racial discrimination were snubbed by the text.
VICTORIA METCALFE, of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, condemned all practices of racism and discrimination, including anti-Semitism. However, holding Israel to account for its human rights violations and apartheid could not be viewed as anti-Semitism. Israel had to be held accountable, just as any other State. Those who sought to denounce the non-governmental organizations' document from Durban only sought to turn a blind eye to racism and racial discrimination. The principle of non-discrimination underpinned all human rights laws. In the fight against South Africa, it was not until effective pressure had been put into place that any successful progress could be seen. Systematic and gross violations of international and humanitarian law must end and Israel needed to be held accountable, even though they had a legal obligation to do so. It was highly ironic that Israel sought to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, when Israel itself still acted with impunity. The Commission was called upon to stand up against Israel's behaviour which was equal to that of apartheid, and to impose sanctions on Israel similar to those imposed upon South Africa.
DIANNE LUPING, of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that it supported all those principled Jewish individuals and groups around the world, who had launched the "Not in My Name" campaign arguing that Israeli human rights violations could not be carried out in their name as the Jewish people and who condemned the propaganda of the Israeli military regime and its supporters. The Israeli military regime tried to claim that holding Israel to account for its gross human rights violations was anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. No country or people of any race, creed or colour should be above the law or enjoy impunity. These were not Jewish violations as such but violations of the Israeli military regime and that of its supporters, who could not claim to speak on behalf of all Jews and abuse their name in the international community. There were some differences in Israel's brand of apartheid to that of South Africa but also some striking similarities, including dispossession, denationalization, separation and the perpetration of inhumane acts.
LEILA SEIGEL, of the International Council of Jewish Women, said that the Conference against Racism in Durban might have been entirely successful had it not been deflected from its stated goal: combatting racism and racial discrimination in all its forms. Indeed the Conference heard racist speeches and proposals, it wasted time and energy to attack the existence of the State of Israel - a parliamentary democracy created by the United Nations - and to foster anti-Jewish sentiment. No one would deny the problems existing in the Middle East, as in many parts of the world, but that Conference was not qualified to solve it. Why was the Israeli-Palestinian question receiving such special treatment, compared to all other conflicts in the world ? The representative deplored the opportunity missed in Durban. The political short term interests of a few had prevailed over the needs of many victims of racism, wherever and whoever they may be. The representative appealed to the Commission to become the forum for all those who suffered from human rights violations in any part of the world, without selectivity or political agenda, and to promote coexistence and tolerance.
MARIA CRUZ, of the International Human Rights Law Group, said there had been significant advances of people of African descent and indigenous peoples due to the World Conference against Racism. Latin American countries had played a fundamental role in the process of the Conference. Poverty, development, marginalization and economic exclusion had been recognized as closely linked to racism. Significant steps had been taken to combat these scourges in the region. Racism and discrimination were the roots of all poverty, limiting access to basic services and leading to unemployment and economic exclusion. Therefore the Governments of Latin America were called upon to renew the relationship with peoples of African descent and indigenous peoples.
Racial discrimination could be combatted through inclusive and multicultural policies which promoted equality and justice for all. The Commission was requested to implement the plan of action from Durban and support national implementation, particularly in Latin America. It was also hoped that the five regional experts would be identified so that they could start their mandates.
RAHSAAN WAREHAM, of the December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, said that African descendants within the United States and Western European countries were living in a virtual underdeveloped society within the most prosperous nations of the world. These conditions persisted despite the supposed equal opportunities for all that these democratic and supposedly free nations claimed to uphold. Crimes against humanity had no statute or limitations. The ideologies of racism developed to justify the brutal enslavement of millions of African peoples for economic gains of the western world were still embedded in the hearts and minds and social system of those nations who claimed to be the leaders of the free world. The victims and their descendants were entitled to compensation for the injuries caused by the perpetrators of these crimes. This was particularly true where there was a continuing injury such as here where the descendants themselves remained the victims of institutionalized racism. A key element of this injury was the violation of the right to development. Reparations were an indispensable component of the right to development.
M. PARSONS, of Physicians for Human Rights, called the Commission to implement as soon as possible the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Although members of racial and ethnic minorities in every society were equally entitled to the highest attainable standards of living, discrimination and racism subjected them to abject poverty, which deprived members of those vulnerable groups of equal access to the most basic necessities of life such as quality health care, education, economic stability and housing.
Racism and poverty were linked. In every indicia of well-being including health, income, education, employment, housing status, and inclusion in the political process, racial and ethnic minorities continued to be victimized by racial policies and practices that maintained them at the bottom of the hierarchy. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was an important first step on the part of the governments to combat the effects of economic apartheid. Where necessary, States had to commit to strengthening or changing their national legislation, institutions and policies to ensure speedy and effective implementation of the Programme of Action. Physicians for Human Rights requested that the Commission adopted a resolution containing five requests. One of them was to study the impact of racism on health. Collection of data was important otherwise the problem could never be resolved, she added.
PETER PROVE, of the Lutheran World Federation, said that his organization had called for the issue of caste-based discrimination and similar forms of discrimination to be addressed at the World Conference against Racism. He deeply regretted that it had not been discussed. The concept of "caste" was based on human rights violations and featured the following types of discrimination: the concept of "purity-pollution", with certain social groups being regarded as "dirty" and contact with them as being ritually or actually polluting; an inherited occupational role, typically the most menial and hazardous roles with the society; and socially enforced endogamy, through varying degrees of strictness.
Despite the advance of democracy, and despite in some cases seemingly comprehensive constitutional and legislative proscriptions against discrimination of this type, such discrimination continued to be a daily and permanent feature of life for a significant proportion of the world's population. He hoped that the anti-discrimination unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be able to deal with this type of discrimination, even though the World Conference had not been able to do so.
ATSUKO TANAKA, of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), called the Commission's attention to discrimination based on descent, a type of racial discrimination provided for in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. He welcomed this year's report of the Special Rapporteur which addressed descent-based discrimination affecting Buraku communities in Japan. Although Buraku people were neither a foreign race nor of foreign ethnicity, the Government of Japan had to accept that Buraku discrimination fell within the mandate of UN mechanisms dealing with racial discrimination, including the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. The representative urged the Government to conduct a nation-wide survey. It should serve to clarify policy and devise measures to eradicate the persistent, deep-rooted Buraku discrimination. This was especially seen in the fields of education, marriage and employment. To the Special Rapporteur, the representative requested a further examination of the situation of descent-based discrimination, including Caste-based discrimination found in Japan and elsewhere.
ABIGAIL HANSEN, of Penal Reform International, said that the organization was dismayed that the terrorist attacks on September 11 had been met with responses on the part of a number of States which were in clear violation of international human rights. The impact of these violations had been most evident within the criminal justice systems. Concern was expressed about the treatment and conditions of Taliban prisoners being detained by the United States in Guatanamo Bay. It was noted that since September 11 a significant number of people had been detained in the United States and had been deprived of a number of basic rights. Concern was also expressed about plans in the United States to expand the airline passenger profiling system, which could have a serious racially discriminatory effect. Another matter of concern was the Military Order signed by the United States Administration which allowed for non-United States citizens suspected of involvement in international terrorism to be tried by special military commissions that could operate in secret. Finally, concern was expressed over the United Kingdom's public emergency laws allowing internment without trial of suspected terrorists.
SERSIO POLIFRONI, of the Andean Commission of Jurists, said ethnic and cultural diversity were part of the potential for the development of the Andean culture. Instead of being proud of this strong culture, there were several stereotypes associated to this type of asymmetrical culture. Racism and discrimination against the Andean people needed to be addressed on moral and legal grounds. In relation to indigenous people, it was pointed out that in countries such as Bolivia, they represented 63 per cent, and needed to be part of the social and economic culture of the country. People of African descent suffered from similar problems of discrimination in other countries in the region.
Actions must emphasize citizens' rights and take into consideration the state of the family. In Colombia, due to the civil conflict, the problem of internally displaced people had worsened. International solidarity needed to consider the plight of internally displaced persons. Societies in the region needed to become more inclusive. The Commission was called upon to battle against all forms of intolerance
L. PARY, of the Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said that more than seven months after the end of the World Conference against Racism in Durban, the victims of racial discrimination had discovered, with disappointment, that the final document was weak and did not protect them against racism. During the preparatory phase of the Conference, the governments with a colonial mentality had demonstrated they were incapable of finding a solution for those looking for justice. Slavery, trafficking in aborigine populations, condemning them to forced labour, were a contemporary form of slavery. Racism was a western notion, he said, and a lack of political will made it not possible in Durban to determine a political truth and to recognize the suffering of thousands of human beings. Globalization increased the phenomenon of racism, he added.
The problem was worsened because of the refusal of the governments of the United States and Israel to consider the question of racism in their countries. Nevertheless, compensation must be given to the victims, especially when everyone knew that slaves built the Capitol in Washington, the capital of freedom. In December 2000, an historical agreement was signed between Germany, Eastern Europe and the United States to give $ 5 billion as compensation to the Jewish victims of the Nazis. Why not do the same thing for the victims of racism? These countries did not even apologize for all the victims of racism, he added.
M. CROZET, of Agir Ensemble pour les droits de l'homme said that 1,000 foreign nationals in France were victims of exceptional discriminatory legislation called double sentencing which included expulsion and banishment from France. These measures affected people who were often born in France or who arrived in the country at an early age or who were husband or wife or a French citizen. These people were socially and culturally French and as members of a French family were full members of the national community. Thus, double sentencing affected not only those who were almost entirely French but also their respective families, who were denied the right to lead a family life. How could the French authorities claim to be fighting against all forms of discrimination within French society when French law was a vehicle of discrimination preventing those French from living with their father, mother, husband, wife, children, brother and sisters ?
TATIANA SHAUMIAN, of the International Institute for Peace, said it was a sad but true fact that among the nations of the world it was the poorer and less developed countries which were far more liberal in permitting human intercourse than the privileged rich and developed nations which had so fashioned their immigration and visa policies that entry into their territory often became a function of the colour of the applicant's skin and the weight of his wallet. This was xenophobic in the extreme. It was added that the battle against terrorism was a just battle as long as those actually responsible were targeted with evidence and proof. But when anger at being victims of terrorism translated into a "profiling" of an entire people because of their colour, race, faith or creed, then the international human rights community must say "enough".
One must be extremely vigilant in analysing crisis situations in different countries so that the existence of a crisis did not become an excuse for the perpetuation of discriminatory policies. The Commission must take the lead in cautioning nation-states against any tendency to use moments of tragedy as pretexts for the institutionalization of discrimination. A corollary to such an exercise must be to examine the legal, constitutional and institutional structures of States so that they were restrained from providing official sanction for discriminatory practices.
KAREN TALBOT, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, said that discrimination of any kind was abhorrent but discrimination that killed because one person prayed in a different way than another was the most heinous. Mankind's history had been marred by episodes of oppression and destruction born of discrimination. The quests for empire and economic exploitation were the motivating forces of racial discrimination during the colonial area. While colonialism as a practice might have been defeated, remnants of the attitudes that fashioned colonial ideology still persisted in the immigration policies of many nations. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that all human beings were born free and equal, the quest for power used the instruments of race and religion to create oppression and discrimination and the perpetuation of the superiority of one group over the other. Educational environments were created that instead of inculcating values of respect for all, taught the language of discrimination and hatred. Democratic norms were supposed to underpin institutions that ensured that such discrimination did not occur. Some nations, which sought to call themselves democracies, were guilty of institutionalizing, through their state structures, abhorrent forms of discrimination based on religion and gender.
RONALD BARNES, of the Indigenous World Association, said that although the Durban Conference allowed for some newly established principles to combat racism, it set the stage to lower the standards for already recognized standards in the current Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. "Manifest Destiny" was the racist doctrine that was used to subjugate, dominate and exploit the indigenous peoples of Alaska in the United States and elsewhere. The indigenous peoples were recognised in the United Nations Charter and even the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights recognized the violation of the right of the indigenous peoples of Alaska to self- determination. The Commission was called upon to address this blatant colonial discrimination.
AROCKIAM JOHN VINCENT, of Pax Romana, said discriminatory and degrading treatment of a vast global population had been justified on the basis of caste. In many South Asian and some African countries, caste and caste-like systems were the basis for the definition and exclusion of distinct groups on the basis of their descent. An estimated 250 million people worldwide continued to suffer under a form of apartheid amounting to segregation, modern day slavery and violence. In India, caste was the factor, which excluded one fifth of its population by reason of their work and descent. Dalits were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, excluded by the non-Dalits in social life.
Violence against Dalits was widespread. Dali women were sexually abused by upper caste people, the perpetrators of whom enjoyed impunity. The Indian Constitution prohibited the practice of untouchability. However, despite formal protection in law, discriminatory treatment remained endemic and impunity remained for those committing crimes against Dalits. It was deplored that the World Conference against Racism had failed to address the plight of the Dalits, and discrimination based on work and descent. The Commission was called upon to ensure that the anti-discrimination unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dealt with this issue.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, said that a crucial aspect in the establishment of universality had been to bring national legislation into conformity with universal human rights standards, as expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights. By and large, States that had ratified international covenants modified national legislation when it was not in conformity. However, in February 1994, a debate had taken place in this Commission when the report of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan, Gaspar Biro, called upon the Government of Sudan to bring its legislation into accordance with international instruments to which it was a party. The Sudanese Government considered this criticism of its Shari'a-based penal legislation as an attack on Islam, invoking the freedom of religion. Today, there were ongoing, controversial debates within Islamic countries concerning what was covered by the Shari'a, the nature of the States legal system, the nature of the authority for its legal codes, and the modalities for modifying them. The representative insisted that universal human rights could not be a reflection of Islamic revelation, nor an outgrowth of Shari'a.
C. ABDELBAGUI, of the World Federation for Democratic Youth, said that as a driving force in the world, young people were especially concerned with the mounting wave of racism, racial discrimination, bigotry and intolerance that currently engulfed many parts of the world. Experience had shown that young people belonging to every racial, ethnic or religious background were often the prime victims of racism and discrimination, in particular during times of insecurity and acute crisis. The rapid proliferation of destructive forms of racism could not be remedied by mere lofty pronouncements or intellectual methods. The reality of the experiences of the victims of racism and racial discrimination required practical and proactive measures. Also required were sustained anti-racism and anti-discrimination educational campaigns. Disappointment was expressed that not all members of the world community were keen on combatting racism and racial discrimination or shared a vision of a world free from these destructive phenomena.
M. PARSONS, of the African Society of International and Comparative Law, said that a substantial step forward was the Conference's acknowledgement of the slave trade as a crime against humanity and that an apology and atonement were due to the African people for the damage they suffered because of this human tragedy. The current unjust world situation, including the on-going humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, rendered the World Conference to be an exceptionally difficult occasion. It had been the subject of sustained criticism in an attempt to discredit the whole anti-racism process and its achievement. It was necessary to look at it in its entirety, as a set of principles that had unequivocally defined the boundaries for a holistic approach targeting solutions to the problems caused by racism.
Some parts of the world had witnessed a mounting wave of Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiments. The revival of such an unhealthy atmosphere of racist sentiments, as well as the unmatched degree of hatred and intolerance that underpinned the terrorist acts themselves would always be a reminder to the world of the importance of the noble message that lay at the heart of the World Conference.
Rights of Reply
A Representative of Turkey, speaking in right of reply, said that no reference to an Armenian genocide could be made. What happened between 1914 and 1915 could not be defined as genocide, it was a civil war from both sides. Genocide was a legal term, and proof was needed with a view to qualify it. The Armenians were trying to find their national identity through a tragedy. The Armenians had to look to the future rather than the past.
A Representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his right to reply, said that Armenia had taken the liberty to turn the Commission into a tribunal. Armenia had to understand that it needed to have good relations with the countries on its borders. Turning to the term of genocide, the representative said that Armenia had turned a legal concept into an abstract one, and that was to justify their own crimes.
A Representative of Malaysia, speaking in right of reply, referred to the statement by the Asian Cultural Forum. Malaysia was a multicultural society. The Government had brought about political stability and economic prosperity to all citizens. The creation of a national human rights commission testified to the Government's commitment to the promotion of human rights and democracy.
A Representative of Armenia, speaking in right of reply, commented on allegations made by Azerbaijan. The statement of Azerbaijan was in contradiction with history and the violations of the human rights of Armenians in Azerbaijan. Perpetrators of gross human rights violations against Armenians were considered as heros in Azerbaijan. The policy of genocide which culminated in the slaughter of millions of Armenians was not recognized by Turkey and Azerbaijan.
A Representative of Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, said that every day there was new evidence of falsified historical facts by the Armenians concerning the so-called Armenian genocide. The Armenian deceptions far exaggerated the truth with the aim of getting pity from the international community.
A Representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his second right of reply, said that Armenia did not have territorial claims over his country. He referred to the cruelty of the Armenians that had massacred a village and left 50 people still unaccounted for.
A Representative of Armenia said, in second right to reply, that Azerbaijan was holding a campaign of disinformation and was politicizing the work of the Commission. Turkey and Azerbaijan had to stop making defamatory statements.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/02/12 of 22 March 2002, the two rights of reply of the representative of Azerbaijan, present on page 12, should read as follows:
A Representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his right of reply, said that regrettably the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia let himself use the tribune of the Commission on Human Rights for territorial claims on the inalienable territories of his country. In response to the warlike statement of the Armenian Minister, the Representative of Azerbaijan assured him that his country will restore its territorial integrity on the basis of norms of international law. Armenia should solve the conflict in a civilized way with respect to sovereignty, territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders of the States, as well as human rights and fundamental freedoms. Concerning the term "genocide" used by the Minister, in Armenia this term had been turned from a legal concept into an abstract one to justify the crimes of Armenia.
A Representative of Azerbaijan, speaking in a second right of reply, said that Armenia had touched upon the question of the so-called Armenian genocide perpetrated by Azerbaijanians. This was the regular propaganda thumper of the Armenian side in order to justify their own crimes. One of the most appalling crimes against the people of Azerbaijan perpetrated by Armenia was the brutal slaughter of the population of the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly from 25 to 26 February 1992. Ten years had passed since that terrible tragedy, which by its scale and features were in full conformity with the notion of "genocide" as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
* *** *
58th session
22 March 2002
Afternoon
Non-Governmental Organizations Address Racism Issues
Vartan Oskanyan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia, told the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon that Armenia would like to have normal good neighbourly relations with Turkey with a hopeful eye to the future. But if the crime of genocide was a national tragedy in the last century, its continued denial in this century placed international cooperation and peace at risk.
Mr. Oskanyan called on Azerbaijan to acknowledge that the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh were not going to become Azerbaijanis against their will. The very existence of the Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh had been threatened when a peaceful call for self-determination had turned into a military conflict replete with aerial bombings and missile attacks. The international community was called upon to assist in searching for a just and lasting peace in the region.
Also speaking to the Commission this afternoon were a list of non-governmental organizations who were speaking under the agenda item on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination. Several speakers referred to the difficulties experienced during the World Conference against Racism in Durban. Some of the difficulties mentioned were deflections from the stated goals of the Conference, the language used, the unsavoury State agendas, the politics of self-interest by non-governmental organizations, and some ineptitude on the part of the Secretariat.
However, other speakers said that the World Conference had been a clear success, putting incredibly important issues on the world agenda. They looked forward to the implementation of the Durban document and to the Commission building on the platform of the Conference to ensure stronger and wider protection for all people, without distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference of any kind.
Amongst several other issues, many speakers also addressed the legacy of colonialism, the need for tolerance, the worrying trend of anti-Islamic sentiments, the resurgence of anti-Semitism, the situation in the Middle East, the death penalty, racism in the administration of justice, and racism and discrimination in several regions and countries.
Addressing the Commission on Human Rights this afternoon were representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: the Arab Organization for Human Rights, the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, the Asian Cultural Forum on Development, the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Amnesty International, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the International Council of Jewish Women, the International Human Rights Law Group, the December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, Physicians for Human Rights, the Lutheran World Federation, the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, Penal Reform International, the Andean Commission of Jurists, the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l'Homme, the International Institute for Peace, the World Federation of Trade Unions, the Indigenous World Association, Pax Romana, the Association for World Education, the World Federation for Democratic Youth, and the African Society of International and Comparative Law. A Representative of the League of Arab States also took the floor.
The Commission will reconvene at 6 p.m. to begin its consideration of the right to development in an evening meeting which will conclude at 9 p.m.
Statements
VARTAN OSKANYAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, said that the Constitution of Armenia and amendments proposed to it protected the rights of all citizens, including minorities, regardless of their national, ethnic, religious and linguistic affiliations. Armenia was modifying its laws on mass media, political parties and non-governmental organizations and was working towards the abolition of the death penalty. Indeed, this year again Armenia would co-sponsor the resolution before the Commission on doing away with capital punishment.
The Minister said that Armenia would like to have normal good neighbourly relations with Turkey with a hopeful eye to the future, rather than an unforgiving eye to the past. But if the crime of genocide was a national tragedy in the last century, its continued denial in this century placed international cooperation and peace at risk. Turkey was called upon to join Armenia in transcending the past in order to allow the region to truly become what it was for centuries: a crossroads, a gateway, a Garden of Eden.
The Minister called on Azerbaijan to acknowledge that the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh were not going to become Azerbaijanis against their will. They were Azerbaijani subjects for the seven Soviet decades and the experience of those years was still with them. They were the "citizens" whose basic human rights were not respected and who were not accorded the dignity of equal economic rights with their Azeri neighbours. The very existence of the Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh had been threatened by an Azerbaijani Government unwilling to provide for that population's right to development and stability. When Armenians rose to call for that right, they received a response that included massacre and deportation. A peaceful call for self-determination had turned into a military conflict replete with aerial bombings and missile attacks. The international community was called upon to assist in searching for a just and lasting peace in the region.
SAAD ALFARARGI (the League of Arab States) said that the Arab League was committed to the struggle against racism and racial discrimination. Colonialism and racism were closely linked and gave rise to the worst problems afflicting our world today. Attempts at hegemony did not augur well for the future. The situation of the Palestinian people came under this item of the agenda due to the racist aspect of the Israeli occupation. Israel must be pressured to work for global peace because this was the only way to bring peace and stability to Israel and the Palestinian people. Foreign occupation was one of the sources of racism and intolerance. Terrorism had no religion or country. Many people had suffered from terrorism, including Arab people, in particular the Palestinian people and this was well before 11 September. The Arab nation had energetically condemned the events of 11 September. The Commission was called upon to denounce racist actions committed under the pretext of combatting terrorism.
GEORGES JABBOUR, of the Arab Organization for Human Rights said that it was a good thing that the recent resolution 1397 had attempted to rectify the situation by envisioning a Palestinian State. It would have been better if the same resolution had declared, in accordance with international law, that this State should be established on the totality of the Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967 and if it had affirmed the basic principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, including the right of every person to return to his country. Some admired the principle of tolerance, but to tolerate must never mean to tolerate violations of human rights.
J.J. KIRKYACHARIAN, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said that despite the difficulties in Durban, the Conference needed to be considered as a step forward. Racism threatened all countries and peoples. Since Durban the need for a global analysis had been realized. The procedure to target existing racism was positive even though much remained to be done. The danger of racism was just down the road. Racism was a real danger. Anti-racism non-governmental organizations therefore had a very important task, particularly in the advanced democratic countries. There was a link between the battle of racism and civil society and the necessary preventive measures that were needed. Non-governmental organizations and political leaders had an enormous task before them.
Unfortunately, sometimes States themselves exercised discrimination. As far as racism was concerned, either all people were equal or some were more equal then others. Unfortunately the latter seemed to be adhered to by some States.
JERALD JOSEPH, of the Asian Cultural Forum on Development, said that Malaysia was a country that had carried on a colonial legacy that divided the society into ethnic groupings. For the past 45 years, it had been the Government's choice to perpetuate this practice and this could be seen at all levels of society. Malaysia's history witnessed a civil riot in 1967 that took the lives of hundreds. This event had not been fully investigated to find out who the perpetrators were. Two hundred schools practised segregation by race and that was another shocking revelation of the extent of covert racism in Malaysia. Over 90 per cent of the civil service workforce was staffed by the Malay community. The level of polarization at all levels of society had become an accepted norm by the government and by society. The State had failed to counter racism and racially divisive patterns within society.
H. SHARFELDDIN, of the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, said that the way the powerful countries were fighting terrorism was terrorism itself against the Third World. Bombs and missiles were sent against poor and defenceless peoples, and that was the main base of the phenomenon of international terrorism. The people of the world were astonished by the statement made by the President Bush when he declared open a third World War. Threats to peace had serious consequences and the inhuman outcome of what was actually happening in many regions of the world had become tragic. The representative firmly condemned these acts and said its call had to be heard by the whole world, and especially by the United Nations and the Commission on Human Rights.
A. SISIC, of Amnesty International, said that many important issues had been put on the international agenda. Amnesty International had participated actively in the World Conference against Racism, highlighting in particular the impact of racism on the administration of justice. Specific recommendations had been made in order to eliminate racism from the functioning of law enforcement and custodial agencies, the judiciary, and asylum determination systems. In countries where the death penalty was still imposed, the organization called on governments to investigate any disproportionate impact of this penalty on racial, ethnic or national groups.
Governments were called upon to recognize the plight of Dalits, as victims of discrimination based on work and descent. Amnesty International also called on governments to recognize and take action against multiple forms of discrimination, specifically those affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender persons.
SHIMON SAMUELS, of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, said that despite its credentials with the Economic and Social Council, it had been excluded on racist grounds from the Tehran preparatory conference for the World Conference against Racism. It was there that the process of semantic theft and Orwellian double-speech began -where the Holocaust became a series of non-Jewish events, and where anti-Semitism, recognized by the United Nations as directed exclusively against Jews, was assimilated into Arab victimology. Three big lies prevailing in Western colonialism against Jews had been adopted by marginal fanatics in the Arab world: the medieval blood libel, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the denial of the Holocaust. The protest march against racism did not end at Durban Town Hall, but at the Jewish Club synagogue, where demonstrators handed out flyers of Hitler asking "What if I would have won" together with the Arab Lawyers Union caricature pamphlet replete with Jewish-hatred of the Nazi Sturmer.
The Declaration and Plan of Action produced in Durban included an eight-point blueprint of genocidal anti-Semitism: the dismantling of the Jewish State with a call for its implementation by the UN agencies. Simon Wiesenthal had said in the 1920s that he was not so much concerned by the number of Nazis, as by the absent voices of anti-Nazis.
ANDREA COOMBER, of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, said that the World Conference against Racism could have made a real impact on monitoring racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance worldwide, and on enforcing existing standards and strengthening mechanisms for human rights protection. However, from its inception the World Conference had been hampered by unsavoury State agendas, the politics of self-interest by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and some ineptitude on the part of the Secretariat. The final document of the World Conference reflected the fact that governments and NGOs became sidetracked by inflammatory text on the Middle East and the downward spiral of the reparations dispute. Engrossed in these matters, delegates were left with insufficient time to consider other pressing issues of racial discrimination. Evaluated against prevailing international standards, the final document had many problems. While the World Conference against Racism had made advances in some areas, such as the treatment of the Roma and concern for racial hatred on the Internet, and had been able to cleverly deal with the slavery issues, millions of victims of racial discrimination were snubbed by the text.
VICTORIA METCALFE, of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, condemned all practices of racism and discrimination, including anti-Semitism. However, holding Israel to account for its human rights violations and apartheid could not be viewed as anti-Semitism. Israel had to be held accountable, just as any other State. Those who sought to denounce the non-governmental organizations' document from Durban only sought to turn a blind eye to racism and racial discrimination. The principle of non-discrimination underpinned all human rights laws. In the fight against South Africa, it was not until effective pressure had been put into place that any successful progress could be seen. Systematic and gross violations of international and humanitarian law must end and Israel needed to be held accountable, even though they had a legal obligation to do so. It was highly ironic that Israel sought to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, when Israel itself still acted with impunity. The Commission was called upon to stand up against Israel's behaviour which was equal to that of apartheid, and to impose sanctions on Israel similar to those imposed upon South Africa.
DIANNE LUPING, of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said that it supported all those principled Jewish individuals and groups around the world, who had launched the "Not in My Name" campaign arguing that Israeli human rights violations could not be carried out in their name as the Jewish people and who condemned the propaganda of the Israeli military regime and its supporters. The Israeli military regime tried to claim that holding Israel to account for its gross human rights violations was anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. No country or people of any race, creed or colour should be above the law or enjoy impunity. These were not Jewish violations as such but violations of the Israeli military regime and that of its supporters, who could not claim to speak on behalf of all Jews and abuse their name in the international community. There were some differences in Israel's brand of apartheid to that of South Africa but also some striking similarities, including dispossession, denationalization, separation and the perpetration of inhumane acts.
LEILA SEIGEL, of the International Council of Jewish Women, said that the Conference against Racism in Durban might have been entirely successful had it not been deflected from its stated goal: combatting racism and racial discrimination in all its forms. Indeed the Conference heard racist speeches and proposals, it wasted time and energy to attack the existence of the State of Israel - a parliamentary democracy created by the United Nations - and to foster anti-Jewish sentiment. No one would deny the problems existing in the Middle East, as in many parts of the world, but that Conference was not qualified to solve it. Why was the Israeli-Palestinian question receiving such special treatment, compared to all other conflicts in the world ? The representative deplored the opportunity missed in Durban. The political short term interests of a few had prevailed over the needs of many victims of racism, wherever and whoever they may be. The representative appealed to the Commission to become the forum for all those who suffered from human rights violations in any part of the world, without selectivity or political agenda, and to promote coexistence and tolerance.
MARIA CRUZ, of the International Human Rights Law Group, said there had been significant advances of people of African descent and indigenous peoples due to the World Conference against Racism. Latin American countries had played a fundamental role in the process of the Conference. Poverty, development, marginalization and economic exclusion had been recognized as closely linked to racism. Significant steps had been taken to combat these scourges in the region. Racism and discrimination were the roots of all poverty, limiting access to basic services and leading to unemployment and economic exclusion. Therefore the Governments of Latin America were called upon to renew the relationship with peoples of African descent and indigenous peoples.
Racial discrimination could be combatted through inclusive and multicultural policies which promoted equality and justice for all. The Commission was requested to implement the plan of action from Durban and support national implementation, particularly in Latin America. It was also hoped that the five regional experts would be identified so that they could start their mandates.
RAHSAAN WAREHAM, of the December Twelfth Movement International Secretariat, said that African descendants within the United States and Western European countries were living in a virtual underdeveloped society within the most prosperous nations of the world. These conditions persisted despite the supposed equal opportunities for all that these democratic and supposedly free nations claimed to uphold. Crimes against humanity had no statute or limitations. The ideologies of racism developed to justify the brutal enslavement of millions of African peoples for economic gains of the western world were still embedded in the hearts and minds and social system of those nations who claimed to be the leaders of the free world. The victims and their descendants were entitled to compensation for the injuries caused by the perpetrators of these crimes. This was particularly true where there was a continuing injury such as here where the descendants themselves remained the victims of institutionalized racism. A key element of this injury was the violation of the right to development. Reparations were an indispensable component of the right to development.
M. PARSONS, of Physicians for Human Rights, called the Commission to implement as soon as possible the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Although members of racial and ethnic minorities in every society were equally entitled to the highest attainable standards of living, discrimination and racism subjected them to abject poverty, which deprived members of those vulnerable groups of equal access to the most basic necessities of life such as quality health care, education, economic stability and housing.
Racism and poverty were linked. In every indicia of well-being including health, income, education, employment, housing status, and inclusion in the political process, racial and ethnic minorities continued to be victimized by racial policies and practices that maintained them at the bottom of the hierarchy. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was an important first step on the part of the governments to combat the effects of economic apartheid. Where necessary, States had to commit to strengthening or changing their national legislation, institutions and policies to ensure speedy and effective implementation of the Programme of Action. Physicians for Human Rights requested that the Commission adopted a resolution containing five requests. One of them was to study the impact of racism on health. Collection of data was important otherwise the problem could never be resolved, she added.
PETER PROVE, of the Lutheran World Federation, said that his organization had called for the issue of caste-based discrimination and similar forms of discrimination to be addressed at the World Conference against Racism. He deeply regretted that it had not been discussed. The concept of "caste" was based on human rights violations and featured the following types of discrimination: the concept of "purity-pollution", with certain social groups being regarded as "dirty" and contact with them as being ritually or actually polluting; an inherited occupational role, typically the most menial and hazardous roles with the society; and socially enforced endogamy, through varying degrees of strictness.
Despite the advance of democracy, and despite in some cases seemingly comprehensive constitutional and legislative proscriptions against discrimination of this type, such discrimination continued to be a daily and permanent feature of life for a significant proportion of the world's population. He hoped that the anti-discrimination unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would be able to deal with this type of discrimination, even though the World Conference had not been able to do so.
ATSUKO TANAKA, of the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), called the Commission's attention to discrimination based on descent, a type of racial discrimination provided for in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. He welcomed this year's report of the Special Rapporteur which addressed descent-based discrimination affecting Buraku communities in Japan. Although Buraku people were neither a foreign race nor of foreign ethnicity, the Government of Japan had to accept that Buraku discrimination fell within the mandate of UN mechanisms dealing with racial discrimination, including the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism. The representative urged the Government to conduct a nation-wide survey. It should serve to clarify policy and devise measures to eradicate the persistent, deep-rooted Buraku discrimination. This was especially seen in the fields of education, marriage and employment. To the Special Rapporteur, the representative requested a further examination of the situation of descent-based discrimination, including Caste-based discrimination found in Japan and elsewhere.
ABIGAIL HANSEN, of Penal Reform International, said that the organization was dismayed that the terrorist attacks on September 11 had been met with responses on the part of a number of States which were in clear violation of international human rights. The impact of these violations had been most evident within the criminal justice systems. Concern was expressed about the treatment and conditions of Taliban prisoners being detained by the United States in Guatanamo Bay. It was noted that since September 11 a significant number of people had been detained in the United States and had been deprived of a number of basic rights. Concern was also expressed about plans in the United States to expand the airline passenger profiling system, which could have a serious racially discriminatory effect. Another matter of concern was the Military Order signed by the United States Administration which allowed for non-United States citizens suspected of involvement in international terrorism to be tried by special military commissions that could operate in secret. Finally, concern was expressed over the United Kingdom's public emergency laws allowing internment without trial of suspected terrorists.
SERSIO POLIFRONI, of the Andean Commission of Jurists, said ethnic and cultural diversity were part of the potential for the development of the Andean culture. Instead of being proud of this strong culture, there were several stereotypes associated to this type of asymmetrical culture. Racism and discrimination against the Andean people needed to be addressed on moral and legal grounds. In relation to indigenous people, it was pointed out that in countries such as Bolivia, they represented 63 per cent, and needed to be part of the social and economic culture of the country. People of African descent suffered from similar problems of discrimination in other countries in the region.
Actions must emphasize citizens' rights and take into consideration the state of the family. In Colombia, due to the civil conflict, the problem of internally displaced people had worsened. International solidarity needed to consider the plight of internally displaced persons. Societies in the region needed to become more inclusive. The Commission was called upon to battle against all forms of intolerance
L. PARY, of the Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said that more than seven months after the end of the World Conference against Racism in Durban, the victims of racial discrimination had discovered, with disappointment, that the final document was weak and did not protect them against racism. During the preparatory phase of the Conference, the governments with a colonial mentality had demonstrated they were incapable of finding a solution for those looking for justice. Slavery, trafficking in aborigine populations, condemning them to forced labour, were a contemporary form of slavery. Racism was a western notion, he said, and a lack of political will made it not possible in Durban to determine a political truth and to recognize the suffering of thousands of human beings. Globalization increased the phenomenon of racism, he added.
The problem was worsened because of the refusal of the governments of the United States and Israel to consider the question of racism in their countries. Nevertheless, compensation must be given to the victims, especially when everyone knew that slaves built the Capitol in Washington, the capital of freedom. In December 2000, an historical agreement was signed between Germany, Eastern Europe and the United States to give $ 5 billion as compensation to the Jewish victims of the Nazis. Why not do the same thing for the victims of racism? These countries did not even apologize for all the victims of racism, he added.
M. CROZET, of Agir Ensemble pour les droits de l'homme said that 1,000 foreign nationals in France were victims of exceptional discriminatory legislation called double sentencing which included expulsion and banishment from France. These measures affected people who were often born in France or who arrived in the country at an early age or who were husband or wife or a French citizen. These people were socially and culturally French and as members of a French family were full members of the national community. Thus, double sentencing affected not only those who were almost entirely French but also their respective families, who were denied the right to lead a family life. How could the French authorities claim to be fighting against all forms of discrimination within French society when French law was a vehicle of discrimination preventing those French from living with their father, mother, husband, wife, children, brother and sisters ?
TATIANA SHAUMIAN, of the International Institute for Peace, said it was a sad but true fact that among the nations of the world it was the poorer and less developed countries which were far more liberal in permitting human intercourse than the privileged rich and developed nations which had so fashioned their immigration and visa policies that entry into their territory often became a function of the colour of the applicant's skin and the weight of his wallet. This was xenophobic in the extreme. It was added that the battle against terrorism was a just battle as long as those actually responsible were targeted with evidence and proof. But when anger at being victims of terrorism translated into a "profiling" of an entire people because of their colour, race, faith or creed, then the international human rights community must say "enough".
One must be extremely vigilant in analysing crisis situations in different countries so that the existence of a crisis did not become an excuse for the perpetuation of discriminatory policies. The Commission must take the lead in cautioning nation-states against any tendency to use moments of tragedy as pretexts for the institutionalization of discrimination. A corollary to such an exercise must be to examine the legal, constitutional and institutional structures of States so that they were restrained from providing official sanction for discriminatory practices.
KAREN TALBOT, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, said that discrimination of any kind was abhorrent but discrimination that killed because one person prayed in a different way than another was the most heinous. Mankind's history had been marred by episodes of oppression and destruction born of discrimination. The quests for empire and economic exploitation were the motivating forces of racial discrimination during the colonial area. While colonialism as a practice might have been defeated, remnants of the attitudes that fashioned colonial ideology still persisted in the immigration policies of many nations. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that all human beings were born free and equal, the quest for power used the instruments of race and religion to create oppression and discrimination and the perpetuation of the superiority of one group over the other. Educational environments were created that instead of inculcating values of respect for all, taught the language of discrimination and hatred. Democratic norms were supposed to underpin institutions that ensured that such discrimination did not occur. Some nations, which sought to call themselves democracies, were guilty of institutionalizing, through their state structures, abhorrent forms of discrimination based on religion and gender.
RONALD BARNES, of the Indigenous World Association, said that although the Durban Conference allowed for some newly established principles to combat racism, it set the stage to lower the standards for already recognized standards in the current Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. "Manifest Destiny" was the racist doctrine that was used to subjugate, dominate and exploit the indigenous peoples of Alaska in the United States and elsewhere. The indigenous peoples were recognised in the United Nations Charter and even the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights recognized the violation of the right of the indigenous peoples of Alaska to self- determination. The Commission was called upon to address this blatant colonial discrimination.
AROCKIAM JOHN VINCENT, of Pax Romana, said discriminatory and degrading treatment of a vast global population had been justified on the basis of caste. In many South Asian and some African countries, caste and caste-like systems were the basis for the definition and exclusion of distinct groups on the basis of their descent. An estimated 250 million people worldwide continued to suffer under a form of apartheid amounting to segregation, modern day slavery and violence. In India, caste was the factor, which excluded one fifth of its population by reason of their work and descent. Dalits were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, excluded by the non-Dalits in social life.
Violence against Dalits was widespread. Dali women were sexually abused by upper caste people, the perpetrators of whom enjoyed impunity. The Indian Constitution prohibited the practice of untouchability. However, despite formal protection in law, discriminatory treatment remained endemic and impunity remained for those committing crimes against Dalits. It was deplored that the World Conference against Racism had failed to address the plight of the Dalits, and discrimination based on work and descent. The Commission was called upon to ensure that the anti-discrimination unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights dealt with this issue.
DAVID LITTMAN, of the Association for World Education, said that a crucial aspect in the establishment of universality had been to bring national legislation into conformity with universal human rights standards, as expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights. By and large, States that had ratified international covenants modified national legislation when it was not in conformity. However, in February 1994, a debate had taken place in this Commission when the report of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan, Gaspar Biro, called upon the Government of Sudan to bring its legislation into accordance with international instruments to which it was a party. The Sudanese Government considered this criticism of its Shari'a-based penal legislation as an attack on Islam, invoking the freedom of religion. Today, there were ongoing, controversial debates within Islamic countries concerning what was covered by the Shari'a, the nature of the States legal system, the nature of the authority for its legal codes, and the modalities for modifying them. The representative insisted that universal human rights could not be a reflection of Islamic revelation, nor an outgrowth of Shari'a.
C. ABDELBAGUI, of the World Federation for Democratic Youth, said that as a driving force in the world, young people were especially concerned with the mounting wave of racism, racial discrimination, bigotry and intolerance that currently engulfed many parts of the world. Experience had shown that young people belonging to every racial, ethnic or religious background were often the prime victims of racism and discrimination, in particular during times of insecurity and acute crisis. The rapid proliferation of destructive forms of racism could not be remedied by mere lofty pronouncements or intellectual methods. The reality of the experiences of the victims of racism and racial discrimination required practical and proactive measures. Also required were sustained anti-racism and anti-discrimination educational campaigns. Disappointment was expressed that not all members of the world community were keen on combatting racism and racial discrimination or shared a vision of a world free from these destructive phenomena.
M. PARSONS, of the African Society of International and Comparative Law, said that a substantial step forward was the Conference's acknowledgement of the slave trade as a crime against humanity and that an apology and atonement were due to the African people for the damage they suffered because of this human tragedy. The current unjust world situation, including the on-going humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, rendered the World Conference to be an exceptionally difficult occasion. It had been the subject of sustained criticism in an attempt to discredit the whole anti-racism process and its achievement. It was necessary to look at it in its entirety, as a set of principles that had unequivocally defined the boundaries for a holistic approach targeting solutions to the problems caused by racism.
Some parts of the world had witnessed a mounting wave of Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiments. The revival of such an unhealthy atmosphere of racist sentiments, as well as the unmatched degree of hatred and intolerance that underpinned the terrorist acts themselves would always be a reminder to the world of the importance of the noble message that lay at the heart of the World Conference.
Rights of Reply
A Representative of Turkey, speaking in right of reply, said that no reference to an Armenian genocide could be made. What happened between 1914 and 1915 could not be defined as genocide, it was a civil war from both sides. Genocide was a legal term, and proof was needed with a view to qualify it. The Armenians were trying to find their national identity through a tragedy. The Armenians had to look to the future rather than the past.
A Representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his right to reply, said that Armenia had taken the liberty to turn the Commission into a tribunal. Armenia had to understand that it needed to have good relations with the countries on its borders. Turning to the term of genocide, the representative said that Armenia had turned a legal concept into an abstract one, and that was to justify their own crimes.
A Representative of Malaysia, speaking in right of reply, referred to the statement by the Asian Cultural Forum. Malaysia was a multicultural society. The Government had brought about political stability and economic prosperity to all citizens. The creation of a national human rights commission testified to the Government's commitment to the promotion of human rights and democracy.
A Representative of Armenia, speaking in right of reply, commented on allegations made by Azerbaijan. The statement of Azerbaijan was in contradiction with history and the violations of the human rights of Armenians in Azerbaijan. Perpetrators of gross human rights violations against Armenians were considered as heros in Azerbaijan. The policy of genocide which culminated in the slaughter of millions of Armenians was not recognized by Turkey and Azerbaijan.
A Representative of Turkey, speaking in a second right of reply, said that every day there was new evidence of falsified historical facts by the Armenians concerning the so-called Armenian genocide. The Armenian deceptions far exaggerated the truth with the aim of getting pity from the international community.
A Representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his second right of reply, said that Armenia did not have territorial claims over his country. He referred to the cruelty of the Armenians that had massacred a village and left 50 people still unaccounted for.
A Representative of Armenia said, in second right to reply, that Azerbaijan was holding a campaign of disinformation and was politicizing the work of the Commission. Turkey and Azerbaijan had to stop making defamatory statements.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/02/12 of 22 March 2002, the two rights of reply of the representative of Azerbaijan, present on page 12, should read as follows:
A Representative of Azerbaijan, exercising his right of reply, said that regrettably the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia let himself use the tribune of the Commission on Human Rights for territorial claims on the inalienable territories of his country. In response to the warlike statement of the Armenian Minister, the Representative of Azerbaijan assured him that his country will restore its territorial integrity on the basis of norms of international law. Armenia should solve the conflict in a civilized way with respect to sovereignty, territorial integrity and internationally recognized borders of the States, as well as human rights and fundamental freedoms. Concerning the term "genocide" used by the Minister, in Armenia this term had been turned from a legal concept into an abstract one to justify the crimes of Armenia.
A Representative of Azerbaijan, speaking in a second right of reply, said that Armenia had touched upon the question of the so-called Armenian genocide perpetrated by Azerbaijanians. This was the regular propaganda thumper of the Armenian side in order to justify their own crimes. One of the most appalling crimes against the people of Azerbaijan perpetrated by Armenia was the brutal slaughter of the population of the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly from 25 to 26 February 1992. Ten years had passed since that terrible tragedy, which by its scale and features were in full conformity with the notion of "genocide" as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: