SUBCOMMISSION CONCLUDES DISCUSSION ON PROTECTION OF MINORITIES
18 August 1999
AFTERNOON
HR/SC/99/20
18 August 1999
The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights concluded this afternoon its annual discussion on the protection of minorities, hearing from a series of Experts, countries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), comment on such matters as the definition of “minority”; whether or not minorities had the right to self-determination; what “self-determination” amounted to; and whether democratic systems in themselves were enough to ensure to protection of the rights of minority groups.
Asbjorn Eide, Chairman of the Subcommission’s Working Group on Minorities, remarking on these themes at the end of the debate, said, among other things, that while self-determination had been a thread throughout the discussion, minority rights should not be used as a basis for independence, which was a different thing; that defining the term "minority" required settling on certain criteria, but the word might be defined as a group of people who felt they belonged together and felt they were threatened with regard to the preservation of their culture, practice of their religion, or similar matters; and that democracy alone, especially in its early stages, was not a very good way of protecting minority rights -- that a country needed to be stable first.
Among others speaking, the NGO Pax Romana contended that “horizontal” inequality between groups, whether ethnic, religious or social, was the major cause of the current wave of civil conflicts around the world, while Franciscans International said that in countries where religious discrimination permeated laws and institutions, effective and concerted remedial action by the international community and the Governments concerned was needed.
Among countries describing Government efforts and policies to protect minorities were Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Greece.
Experts addressing the Subcommission were Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, Yeung Kam Yeung Sik Yuen, and Mr. Eide. Alternate Expert Antoanella Iulia Motoc also spoke.
Representatives of Pakistan, the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Sudan and Greece delivered statements.
NGOs addressing meeting were International Prison Watch; International Association for Religious Freedom; Asian Women's Human Rights Council; International Peace Bureau; Liberation; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos; International Educational Development; World Federation of Democratic Youth; World Muslim Congress; Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization; Pax Romana; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; and Franciscans International.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, 19 August, and is expected to discuss methods of work.
Statement
ELKE ALBRECHT of International Prison Watch, said that prisoners were a social minority within national populations. In Argentina, there had been uprisings in prisons; overcrowding was one of the main problems. There was also a lack of food and educational materials, and many were HIV positive. Many were kept for months in preventive detention and kept in commissaries. In Uruguay, there were also serious violations of the human rights of prisoners. Many were arrested without warrants, and there was ill-treatment of prisoners. The abuse of firearms by police officers also occurred. The detainees in one prison depended on the charity of neighbours for food; other prisoners died because of lack of medical care. In some prisons, about a fifth of the inmates were minors; many didn't get legal assistance before their trials. Women prisoners were also sometimes kept in the same prisons as men. Units for women were often guarded by men, and women prisoners were sometimes hurt and sexually violated.
In the United Kingdom, women prisoners were transported under difficult conditions. Women had been handcuffed to their hospital beds. These and other facts indicated an infringement of human rights. A special rapporteur should be appointed to look into these matters.
GIANFRANCO ROSSI, of International Association for Religious Freedom, said a real solution should be found to the problems of minorities, since they were tragic and could even imperil peace, such as had occurred in Kosovo. The Subcommission should insist on the application of article 4.1 of the Declaration of 1992, which stipulated that all minorities could enjoy their rights under the law.
Unfortunately, there were many religious minorities who could not enjoy their rights since they were victims of intolerance and persecution. This was the case, for example, in Pakistan, where the Ahmadi religious minority was constantly persecuted. The Subcommission was the only UN body that had explicitly received the task of protecting minorities, and it should continue to do so, and should protect the Ahmadi religious minority. Other religious minorities also needed the protection of the Subcommission. A real constructive dialogue between minority representatives and States should be ensured.
AKIRA MAEDA, of the Asian Women's Human Rights Council, said the Japanese Government had not recognized that there were minorities in Japan. If a Government did not recognize that there were minorities in its country, discrimination against minorities would escape detection and it would be impossible to promote and protect human rights.
The Japanese Government discriminated against Koreans and their schools. Korean schools were not recognized as regular schools. Discrimination against Koreans by the Japanese Government caused conflict, and the Subcommission should pay attention to the issue.
CUNG BIK LING, of International Peace Bureau, said ethnic cleansing was taking place and had taken place for over 50 years in Burma. Innocent people were imprisoned without justification, there was torture, forced relocation, forced labour, and potering for the army. This occurred regardless of age or sex, and abuse of women as well as young girls was rampant.
This was the result of aggressive attempts to unite the country by forcibly assimilating ethnic indigenous nationalities into a melting pot of Burmese culture. The international community should do everything possible to bring an end to the genocidal war of the military regime on the ethnic indigenous peoples of Burma. Speedy action was required or their cultural identities would shortly be relegated to museums.
JASELER SINGH RAI, of Liberation, said many civil disturbances were expressions of real grievances. There were reasons to believe that there was a category of civil disturbance targeted at minority groups deliberately staged or facilitated or tolerated by State authorities. In some cases the police took action belatedly. In others, there were “riots” when the offending side was handed weapons and other arsenals by the authorities. States often had the means to meet any rebellions or insurgencies but they did not protect minorities during demonstrations or do anything to prevent riots against minorities and other targeted groups. Examples where there were targeted riots included countries Eastern Europe, South Asia, South East Asia and some countries in Africa; they were not uncommon in Western Europe and North America.
Riots should be monitored and recorded by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Further study by the Subcommission was needed. The rights of minorities and other groups could not be promoted when they were threatened through extra-Constitutional means aided or tolerated by the State.
GIANBFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the sad events taking place in Kosovo against the Gypsies would probably be forgotten by posterity, as was the Gypsy Holocaust during the Second World War. The Cold War against the Roma community had led to isolation and forced assimilation in many areas. The current situation of some 12 to 15 million Gypsies across the world was increasingly critical, since they were frequent targets of ethnic cleansing.
The flight from Kosovo was only the latest in a long list of incidents of harassment. Italy had a policy of segregation against the Roma, leaving them open to physical, economic and social segregation. The Roma were also persecuted in other countries, such as the Czech Republic and Switzerland. The time had come for the international community as a whole to look seriously upon the situation of the Gypsy people.
MOHAMED AMED LABEID, of Federation de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said there were great changes in human rights in Morocco. In the occupied territories of Western Sahara, the people were a minority in their own country. The strategy was to prevent the original inhabitants from exercising their right to self-determination. There was a state of siege and a clampdown there. The right to self-determination should apply in this situation. A fair and impartial referendum was required, as was freedom of movement. There was a lack of guarantees for refugees to return home safely. Murder, arbitrary detention, torture and convictions -- all contrary to due process -- continued.
The international community and the Government of Spain should support a peace plan for the right to self-determination in Western Sahara. Qualified observers should be sent to the territory. Cases of disappeared persons of Spanish nationality should be investigated.
KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said the ideal in human-rights work was to respond to situations where minorities were in difficulties, before the situation got out of hand. In Latvia, there was a conflict between ethnic Latvians and minorities, notably Jewish and Russian minorities. Another situation meriting attention was the attempt by Indonesian authorities to foment strife between ethnic Moluccans and Javanese settlers sent by the authorities as part of an ethnic-dilution scheme, an attempt to make the Moluccans a minority in their own country.
The Subcommission was uniquely placed to indicate to the Indonesian authorities the need to draw away from incitement and to formulate instead ways and means to address these problems in a constructive manner, using the international formulas set out.
SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Subcommission Expert, said a definition of minorities was needed to help recognize certain broad categories of groups. Minorities must be afforded the means to preserve cultural identity.
Minorities had a vote, but they did not have a veto. They need not invoke secession as long as their rights were available to them. Minorities needed easy access to judicial institutions or to national human-rights commissions.
MOHAMMAD ANWAR, of World Federation of Democratic Youth, said the Mohajirs of Sindh in Pakistan had been suffering the worst atrocities that an ethnic and linguistic minority could imagine. The fundamental reason for the Government's oppressive measures against the Mohajirs was that the dominant ethnic group of feudal, Punjabi bureaucracy, establishment and the Army was not prepared to share power and natural resources with other ethnic groups in a democratic fashion, and considered the Mohajirs a segment of society that challenged their hegemony and monopolization of power and economic resources.
The Subcommission should take action within the frame of its mandate to persuade Pakistan to put an end to its repressive and anti-human repression of the Mohajirs, who had died by the thousands in the genocide and pogroms unleashed against them.
M. AHMAD, of the World Muslim Congress, said that one way to define the term "minority" was to decide what it wasn't. Without a definition there was a potential to invent "artificial minorities."
Some minority groups went unnoticed. One example was the Muslim minority in Tanzania, where girl students wearing traditional dress were expelled. Another was the minority Rohingyas in Burma who were, among other things, victims of forced labour and torture. In India, the BJP party was dedicated to bringing about Hindu cultural and political ascendancy. It had engineered anti-Muslim riots. Indian society seemed to be conditioned to condoning violence against Muslims. Discriminatory practices must be stopped and replaced with affirmative action so that the deprived Muslim minority could have its rightful share in every field of human endeavour.
KEITH BENNET, of Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, said there was hardly any country that could claim it had no minorities. What differed between countries was the treatment that the majority meted out to minorities. The principles of democracy demanded that all peoples be treated equally, but such an ideal situation was only possible if minority groups believed that their rights were not only respected but protected. Economic considerations were often at the heart of discrimination. The real danger was that imagined slights often persuaded minority groups to adopt a ghetto mentality that sought reassurance through armed struggle. The inherent nobility of democracies was being exploited by terrorist groups using religion and ethnicity to destabilize established societies.
The protection of minority rights was a pre-requisite for realizing the concept of the global family. This was a goal towards which the human-rights community should strive, and it should start by ensuring that State structures that encouraged discrimination on the basis of the minority status of a community were dismantled.
YEUNG KAM YEUNG SIK YUEN, Subcommission Expert, said that a multi-ethnic, pluralist State could be comprised of several groups and races in different proportions. The problem was when minorities felt at a disadvantage, not so much in numbers, but as with regards to their rights. If the State did not guarantee those rights on an equal footing for all, there would be a problem. A small, multicultural country such Mauritius was lucky because people from all continents had settled there and lived peacefully together.
If each minority played its part, felt at ease, was not threatened and was able to fully enjoy its rights, there would be no problem. The problem of minorities went beyond numbers; it was a problem of education, of a way of life, of tolerance, and of respect for human rights.
ALEX BONGANI MIHURI, of Pax Romana, said horizontal inequality between groups, whether ethnic, religious or social, was the major cause of the current wave of civil conflicts. In spite of multiple identities and multicultural manifestations of a nation, the root identity of any group asserted itself, more forcibly accentuating social disintegration. The concept of minority was ambiguous, and could only be used in relation to a "majority" in a given framework where the State was taken as a point of reference.
Many minorities, however, rejected this qualification, and considered themselves to be “peoples”. In this situation, minorities would be denied control over their destiny. The Subcommission should elaborate a working paper on constructive ways and means of understanding as well as realizing the right to self-determination, particularly regarding minorities and indigenous peoples, while focussing on the implementation of the relevant Declaration. This normative work would directly confront the challenges posed, namely, the prevention of conflicts and the promotion of the right to peace.
VERENA GRAT, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said minorities added to the rich culture of countries. Switzerland was one example. The aspirations and claims of minorities were largely based on staying alive, preserving their linguistic integrity and so on. In a democratic society it was not sufficient to recognize minority rights if they were not respected in practice. Dialogue between Governments and minorities should be encouraged. Kashmiri Pandits in the Jammu region and in other parts of India were suffering. This group was in the minority in the region where it was living. Its members had been forcibly displaced, and the local majority community was the cause for most of this suffering. Pandits were an internally displaced population, not migrants. They were in their tenth year of exile, and there was no end in sight for them.
Priority should be given to the security of Kashmiri Pandits who wished to return and to affirmative action to make sure their rights were promoted. They should participate in all state governing bodies.
PHILIPPE LEBLANC, of Franciscans International, said the organization was concerned about discrimination and persecution on the basis of religion. The problem of religious discrimination was growing, and was at the root of a number of conflicts and ongoing violence in many parts of the world. Religious minorities were increasingly the target of bigotry, which was often instigated by extremist forces.
In countries where religious discrimination permeated laws and institutions, including the religious system, where religious discrimination was systemic and endemic to every aspect of the life of minorities, what was required was effective and concerted action on the part of the international community and the Governments concerned to remedy the situation. There were serious problems such as these in India and in Pakistan, and these should be remedied.
GHULAM NABI FAI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the issue was especially challenging, since human nature seemed to incline majorities to discriminate against minorities, whether the differentiation was tribal, racial, or religious. But numerical minorities often discriminated against numerical majorities if they held the necessary political or military power.
The genuine bane of this agenda item was not discrimination against minorities, but discrimination based on individious criteria. This was a recurring and elusive problem. There was a tension between the creed of majority rule and the equally compelling creed of equal and fair treatment of minorities. How and where to strike a balance was an issue worthy of focused attention. Another issue worthy of focussed attention was the situation of the Kashmiri Pandits.
FAROOQ HASSAN (Pakistan) said that, regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the right to self-determination could be taken out of context to impair the sovereignty of States. The concept of self-determination was not ambiguous. When a group of people made the decision to "throw in its lot" with the State, this was the basis of self-determination. The protection of minorities was based on non-exclusion, non-assimilation and non-discrimination. The protection of minorities was a necessity.
To assure the rights of minority people in Pakistan, a separate electoral system had been kept intact. The Government had an inter-faith committee to discuss separate electorates, blasphemy laws and other issues. Various other measures designed to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights of minorities had been enacted. The best way to advance the right and welfare of minority communities in Pakistan was to create conditions for rapid socio-economic progress in the country.
IVANA SCHELLONGOVA (Czech Republic) said that in the context of the social and economic changes the Czech Republic had undergone since 1989, the problems of co-existence between persons belonging to the majority Czech population and those belonging to the Roma ethnic minority had deepened markedly. The Czech Republic, however, was in favour of considering the Roma issue as not being an exclusively Czech or European matter.
The Roma minority was not a national minority as traditionally perceived in Europe, having no bonds to any particular region anywhere in the world. One of the features of the group was a strong tendency to migrate, which made them different from most of the populations of the countries in which they formed a minority. The Roma's lifestyle was very similar to a way of living seen especially in non-European countries. This all suggested that
the Roma issue transcended the national borders of individual States, and consequently should be addressed through the concerted action of the entire international community.
S. BEREZNY (Russian Federation) said Russia had problems with minorities but was doing everything it could to improve the situation. There were problems in other countries, notably Estonia and Latvia. Russian-speaking minorities there were in situations of concern. So-called integration programs in those countries did not involve the participation of minorities; they were programmes of assimilation. Estonian legislation deprived minorities of their citizenship. Humanitarian laws in Estonia and Lativia required fundamental change; European standards must apply for all who wanted to live within the European community.
S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said the Working Group on Minorities constituted a useful instrument for the effective implementation of the Declaration on Minority Rights, which Sri Lanka supported for several reasons. Sri Lanka had made major efforts to preserve the multi-cultural nature of its society, its cohesiveness of values and richness of diversity which were so conducive to the prosperity of the nation, its sustainability of democracy, and its economic development. These efforts had been recognized by the Chairman of the Working Group. Government endeavours were open to further improvements, but represented a useful model for multi-cultural relations in a developing democracy.
Sri Lanka was firmly believed that non-violent and consultative means could and should be employed to reach agreement on the promotion and protection of minority rights in a tolerant society where democracy, pluralism and human rights prevailed.
A representative of Georgia said that equality among groups in a country would ensure peace and stability. Georgian State laws required that human dignity was respected; citizens of Georgia were equal, and they could develop their own cultures and languages. To implement Constitutional provisions and international conventions protecting the rights of minorities, appropriate machinery had been set up.
Questions of the rights of minorities living in the territories of the former Soviet Union should be explored at the international level.
HASSAN E. TALIB (Sudan) said the Constitution of Sudan stipulated equality of all people in rights and duties regardless of race, sex, or religious creed. The right to religious freedom was also a Constitutional right. The law provided for ensuring equality between all individuals and minorities of society to contribute to the enjoyment of all human rights by all members, and to guarantee access to resources on a basis of equality. The social strategy of the Government of Sudan aimed at integrating all minorities as an essential component of a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic society, and to ensure harmony within different social groups. This included the right to declare religion or creed, and manifest the same by way of worship, education, practice, or performance of rites and ceremonies.
One of the main obstacles to this was the armed conflict in southern Sudan, and it was hoped the Subcommission would urge the international community to support the standing comprehensive cease-fire declared by the Government early this month.
ELEFTERIOS DOUVOS (Greece) said the Muslim minority in Thrace enjoyed full equality with all Greek citizens. In Thrace, the Muslim minority consisted of three separate groups, each with its own language, culture, heritage and history. In this sense, members of this minority identified with being Turks or Pomaks or Gypsies, but for legal and administrative purposes these people were not Turkish and could not be referred to as such.
As far as the so-called "Macedonian" minority in Greece was concerned, there was no such minority in Greece. There were people in Macedonia, in Northern Greece, who spoke a Slavic idiom, but they did not believe they belonged to a minority. Anyone who believed that his or her rights were violated in Greece could have free recourse to justice, and there was also recourse to the European Court of Human Rights.
ANTOANELLA IULIA MOTOC, Subcommission Alternate Expert, said the work of the Working Group on Minorities had proved most helpful and informative. All the work of the working group had been important and modern, and in the forefront of research into minorities. The issue of minority rights had re-emerged after the Cold War because the end of the Cold War marked progress in globalization and freedom. People began to search for their identities, and various kinds of collective identity developed at the local level. Progress had been made in protecting minorities, notably through the Declaration of 1992.
Today, Ms. Motoc said, the question posed was whether the issues contained in the Declaration could not become a Convention, since there was need for a binding and yet voluntary instrument on the issue. The substantive aspects concerning the rights and obligations of minorities were unique. It was difficult to establish substantive rights for minorities, as well as a definition of the term. It was important in the area of minorities to stress that the diversity of minorities could be difficult to reconcile with the diversity of States. The procedural rights of minorities should be stressed, and dialogue should be held with the State as a means of resolving differences.
Whether the protection of human rights implied the existence of a democratic State was a new issue, arising with regard to national minorities, because the quality to participate at all levels of decision-making implied their belonging to a democratic State. Another important area, Ms. Motoc noted, was the problem of multi-culturalism, which was also a solution to the problem of minorities. The Roma minority was a minority that required a considerable amount of assistance from the international community to establish its rights and identity. A study of self-determination and its nature could prove extremely important. It was important to make distinctions between various categories of minorities.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said self-determination had been a thread throughout the discussion. Minority rights should not be used as a basis for independence. The causes of current outbursts and ethnic identities needed to be explored. Was globalization a factor? Competing identities could come in to play in such a discussion.
Concerning a definition of "minorities", some criteria were needed. The term "minority" could be defined as a group of people who felt they belonged together and felt they were threatened with regard to the preservation of their culture, practice of their religion, etc. Minority rights should not be used as a pretext for gender discrimination. Indigenous groups might, in some cases, avail themselves of minority protection, but this needed further discussion.
Democracy, especially in its early stages, was not a very good way of protecting minority rights; a country needed to be stable first. Regarding international participation by minorities, the Subcommission was one arena where that was already happening. Regarding the question of reverse minorities, as with the Pandits in Kashmir, this was also an important issue. Religious intolerance was a matter of increasing concern.
HR/SC/99/20
18 August 1999
The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights concluded this afternoon its annual discussion on the protection of minorities, hearing from a series of Experts, countries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), comment on such matters as the definition of “minority”; whether or not minorities had the right to self-determination; what “self-determination” amounted to; and whether democratic systems in themselves were enough to ensure to protection of the rights of minority groups.
Asbjorn Eide, Chairman of the Subcommission’s Working Group on Minorities, remarking on these themes at the end of the debate, said, among other things, that while self-determination had been a thread throughout the discussion, minority rights should not be used as a basis for independence, which was a different thing; that defining the term "minority" required settling on certain criteria, but the word might be defined as a group of people who felt they belonged together and felt they were threatened with regard to the preservation of their culture, practice of their religion, or similar matters; and that democracy alone, especially in its early stages, was not a very good way of protecting minority rights -- that a country needed to be stable first.
Among others speaking, the NGO Pax Romana contended that “horizontal” inequality between groups, whether ethnic, religious or social, was the major cause of the current wave of civil conflicts around the world, while Franciscans International said that in countries where religious discrimination permeated laws and institutions, effective and concerted remedial action by the international community and the Governments concerned was needed.
Among countries describing Government efforts and policies to protect minorities were Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Greece.
Experts addressing the Subcommission were Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, Yeung Kam Yeung Sik Yuen, and Mr. Eide. Alternate Expert Antoanella Iulia Motoc also spoke.
Representatives of Pakistan, the Czech Republic, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Sudan and Greece delivered statements.
NGOs addressing meeting were International Prison Watch; International Association for Religious Freedom; Asian Women's Human Rights Council; International Peace Bureau; Liberation; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos; International Educational Development; World Federation of Democratic Youth; World Muslim Congress; Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization; Pax Romana; International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples; and Franciscans International.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, 19 August, and is expected to discuss methods of work.
Statement
ELKE ALBRECHT of International Prison Watch, said that prisoners were a social minority within national populations. In Argentina, there had been uprisings in prisons; overcrowding was one of the main problems. There was also a lack of food and educational materials, and many were HIV positive. Many were kept for months in preventive detention and kept in commissaries. In Uruguay, there were also serious violations of the human rights of prisoners. Many were arrested without warrants, and there was ill-treatment of prisoners. The abuse of firearms by police officers also occurred. The detainees in one prison depended on the charity of neighbours for food; other prisoners died because of lack of medical care. In some prisons, about a fifth of the inmates were minors; many didn't get legal assistance before their trials. Women prisoners were also sometimes kept in the same prisons as men. Units for women were often guarded by men, and women prisoners were sometimes hurt and sexually violated.
In the United Kingdom, women prisoners were transported under difficult conditions. Women had been handcuffed to their hospital beds. These and other facts indicated an infringement of human rights. A special rapporteur should be appointed to look into these matters.
GIANFRANCO ROSSI, of International Association for Religious Freedom, said a real solution should be found to the problems of minorities, since they were tragic and could even imperil peace, such as had occurred in Kosovo. The Subcommission should insist on the application of article 4.1 of the Declaration of 1992, which stipulated that all minorities could enjoy their rights under the law.
Unfortunately, there were many religious minorities who could not enjoy their rights since they were victims of intolerance and persecution. This was the case, for example, in Pakistan, where the Ahmadi religious minority was constantly persecuted. The Subcommission was the only UN body that had explicitly received the task of protecting minorities, and it should continue to do so, and should protect the Ahmadi religious minority. Other religious minorities also needed the protection of the Subcommission. A real constructive dialogue between minority representatives and States should be ensured.
AKIRA MAEDA, of the Asian Women's Human Rights Council, said the Japanese Government had not recognized that there were minorities in Japan. If a Government did not recognize that there were minorities in its country, discrimination against minorities would escape detection and it would be impossible to promote and protect human rights.
The Japanese Government discriminated against Koreans and their schools. Korean schools were not recognized as regular schools. Discrimination against Koreans by the Japanese Government caused conflict, and the Subcommission should pay attention to the issue.
CUNG BIK LING, of International Peace Bureau, said ethnic cleansing was taking place and had taken place for over 50 years in Burma. Innocent people were imprisoned without justification, there was torture, forced relocation, forced labour, and potering for the army. This occurred regardless of age or sex, and abuse of women as well as young girls was rampant.
This was the result of aggressive attempts to unite the country by forcibly assimilating ethnic indigenous nationalities into a melting pot of Burmese culture. The international community should do everything possible to bring an end to the genocidal war of the military regime on the ethnic indigenous peoples of Burma. Speedy action was required or their cultural identities would shortly be relegated to museums.
JASELER SINGH RAI, of Liberation, said many civil disturbances were expressions of real grievances. There were reasons to believe that there was a category of civil disturbance targeted at minority groups deliberately staged or facilitated or tolerated by State authorities. In some cases the police took action belatedly. In others, there were “riots” when the offending side was handed weapons and other arsenals by the authorities. States often had the means to meet any rebellions or insurgencies but they did not protect minorities during demonstrations or do anything to prevent riots against minorities and other targeted groups. Examples where there were targeted riots included countries Eastern Europe, South Asia, South East Asia and some countries in Africa; they were not uncommon in Western Europe and North America.
Riots should be monitored and recorded by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Further study by the Subcommission was needed. The rights of minorities and other groups could not be promoted when they were threatened through extra-Constitutional means aided or tolerated by the State.
GIANBFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the sad events taking place in Kosovo against the Gypsies would probably be forgotten by posterity, as was the Gypsy Holocaust during the Second World War. The Cold War against the Roma community had led to isolation and forced assimilation in many areas. The current situation of some 12 to 15 million Gypsies across the world was increasingly critical, since they were frequent targets of ethnic cleansing.
The flight from Kosovo was only the latest in a long list of incidents of harassment. Italy had a policy of segregation against the Roma, leaving them open to physical, economic and social segregation. The Roma were also persecuted in other countries, such as the Czech Republic and Switzerland. The time had come for the international community as a whole to look seriously upon the situation of the Gypsy people.
MOHAMED AMED LABEID, of Federation de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos, said there were great changes in human rights in Morocco. In the occupied territories of Western Sahara, the people were a minority in their own country. The strategy was to prevent the original inhabitants from exercising their right to self-determination. There was a state of siege and a clampdown there. The right to self-determination should apply in this situation. A fair and impartial referendum was required, as was freedom of movement. There was a lack of guarantees for refugees to return home safely. Murder, arbitrary detention, torture and convictions -- all contrary to due process -- continued.
The international community and the Government of Spain should support a peace plan for the right to self-determination in Western Sahara. Qualified observers should be sent to the territory. Cases of disappeared persons of Spanish nationality should be investigated.
KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said the ideal in human-rights work was to respond to situations where minorities were in difficulties, before the situation got out of hand. In Latvia, there was a conflict between ethnic Latvians and minorities, notably Jewish and Russian minorities. Another situation meriting attention was the attempt by Indonesian authorities to foment strife between ethnic Moluccans and Javanese settlers sent by the authorities as part of an ethnic-dilution scheme, an attempt to make the Moluccans a minority in their own country.
The Subcommission was uniquely placed to indicate to the Indonesian authorities the need to draw away from incitement and to formulate instead ways and means to address these problems in a constructive manner, using the international formulas set out.
SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Subcommission Expert, said a definition of minorities was needed to help recognize certain broad categories of groups. Minorities must be afforded the means to preserve cultural identity.
Minorities had a vote, but they did not have a veto. They need not invoke secession as long as their rights were available to them. Minorities needed easy access to judicial institutions or to national human-rights commissions.
MOHAMMAD ANWAR, of World Federation of Democratic Youth, said the Mohajirs of Sindh in Pakistan had been suffering the worst atrocities that an ethnic and linguistic minority could imagine. The fundamental reason for the Government's oppressive measures against the Mohajirs was that the dominant ethnic group of feudal, Punjabi bureaucracy, establishment and the Army was not prepared to share power and natural resources with other ethnic groups in a democratic fashion, and considered the Mohajirs a segment of society that challenged their hegemony and monopolization of power and economic resources.
The Subcommission should take action within the frame of its mandate to persuade Pakistan to put an end to its repressive and anti-human repression of the Mohajirs, who had died by the thousands in the genocide and pogroms unleashed against them.
M. AHMAD, of the World Muslim Congress, said that one way to define the term "minority" was to decide what it wasn't. Without a definition there was a potential to invent "artificial minorities."
Some minority groups went unnoticed. One example was the Muslim minority in Tanzania, where girl students wearing traditional dress were expelled. Another was the minority Rohingyas in Burma who were, among other things, victims of forced labour and torture. In India, the BJP party was dedicated to bringing about Hindu cultural and political ascendancy. It had engineered anti-Muslim riots. Indian society seemed to be conditioned to condoning violence against Muslims. Discriminatory practices must be stopped and replaced with affirmative action so that the deprived Muslim minority could have its rightful share in every field of human endeavour.
KEITH BENNET, of Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, said there was hardly any country that could claim it had no minorities. What differed between countries was the treatment that the majority meted out to minorities. The principles of democracy demanded that all peoples be treated equally, but such an ideal situation was only possible if minority groups believed that their rights were not only respected but protected. Economic considerations were often at the heart of discrimination. The real danger was that imagined slights often persuaded minority groups to adopt a ghetto mentality that sought reassurance through armed struggle. The inherent nobility of democracies was being exploited by terrorist groups using religion and ethnicity to destabilize established societies.
The protection of minority rights was a pre-requisite for realizing the concept of the global family. This was a goal towards which the human-rights community should strive, and it should start by ensuring that State structures that encouraged discrimination on the basis of the minority status of a community were dismantled.
YEUNG KAM YEUNG SIK YUEN, Subcommission Expert, said that a multi-ethnic, pluralist State could be comprised of several groups and races in different proportions. The problem was when minorities felt at a disadvantage, not so much in numbers, but as with regards to their rights. If the State did not guarantee those rights on an equal footing for all, there would be a problem. A small, multicultural country such Mauritius was lucky because people from all continents had settled there and lived peacefully together.
If each minority played its part, felt at ease, was not threatened and was able to fully enjoy its rights, there would be no problem. The problem of minorities went beyond numbers; it was a problem of education, of a way of life, of tolerance, and of respect for human rights.
ALEX BONGANI MIHURI, of Pax Romana, said horizontal inequality between groups, whether ethnic, religious or social, was the major cause of the current wave of civil conflicts. In spite of multiple identities and multicultural manifestations of a nation, the root identity of any group asserted itself, more forcibly accentuating social disintegration. The concept of minority was ambiguous, and could only be used in relation to a "majority" in a given framework where the State was taken as a point of reference.
Many minorities, however, rejected this qualification, and considered themselves to be “peoples”. In this situation, minorities would be denied control over their destiny. The Subcommission should elaborate a working paper on constructive ways and means of understanding as well as realizing the right to self-determination, particularly regarding minorities and indigenous peoples, while focussing on the implementation of the relevant Declaration. This normative work would directly confront the challenges posed, namely, the prevention of conflicts and the promotion of the right to peace.
VERENA GRAT, of International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said minorities added to the rich culture of countries. Switzerland was one example. The aspirations and claims of minorities were largely based on staying alive, preserving their linguistic integrity and so on. In a democratic society it was not sufficient to recognize minority rights if they were not respected in practice. Dialogue between Governments and minorities should be encouraged. Kashmiri Pandits in the Jammu region and in other parts of India were suffering. This group was in the minority in the region where it was living. Its members had been forcibly displaced, and the local majority community was the cause for most of this suffering. Pandits were an internally displaced population, not migrants. They were in their tenth year of exile, and there was no end in sight for them.
Priority should be given to the security of Kashmiri Pandits who wished to return and to affirmative action to make sure their rights were promoted. They should participate in all state governing bodies.
PHILIPPE LEBLANC, of Franciscans International, said the organization was concerned about discrimination and persecution on the basis of religion. The problem of religious discrimination was growing, and was at the root of a number of conflicts and ongoing violence in many parts of the world. Religious minorities were increasingly the target of bigotry, which was often instigated by extremist forces.
In countries where religious discrimination permeated laws and institutions, including the religious system, where religious discrimination was systemic and endemic to every aspect of the life of minorities, what was required was effective and concerted action on the part of the international community and the Governments concerned to remedy the situation. There were serious problems such as these in India and in Pakistan, and these should be remedied.
GHULAM NABI FAI, of International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, said the issue was especially challenging, since human nature seemed to incline majorities to discriminate against minorities, whether the differentiation was tribal, racial, or religious. But numerical minorities often discriminated against numerical majorities if they held the necessary political or military power.
The genuine bane of this agenda item was not discrimination against minorities, but discrimination based on individious criteria. This was a recurring and elusive problem. There was a tension between the creed of majority rule and the equally compelling creed of equal and fair treatment of minorities. How and where to strike a balance was an issue worthy of focused attention. Another issue worthy of focussed attention was the situation of the Kashmiri Pandits.
FAROOQ HASSAN (Pakistan) said that, regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the right to self-determination could be taken out of context to impair the sovereignty of States. The concept of self-determination was not ambiguous. When a group of people made the decision to "throw in its lot" with the State, this was the basis of self-determination. The protection of minorities was based on non-exclusion, non-assimilation and non-discrimination. The protection of minorities was a necessity.
To assure the rights of minority people in Pakistan, a separate electoral system had been kept intact. The Government had an inter-faith committee to discuss separate electorates, blasphemy laws and other issues. Various other measures designed to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights of minorities had been enacted. The best way to advance the right and welfare of minority communities in Pakistan was to create conditions for rapid socio-economic progress in the country.
IVANA SCHELLONGOVA (Czech Republic) said that in the context of the social and economic changes the Czech Republic had undergone since 1989, the problems of co-existence between persons belonging to the majority Czech population and those belonging to the Roma ethnic minority had deepened markedly. The Czech Republic, however, was in favour of considering the Roma issue as not being an exclusively Czech or European matter.
The Roma minority was not a national minority as traditionally perceived in Europe, having no bonds to any particular region anywhere in the world. One of the features of the group was a strong tendency to migrate, which made them different from most of the populations of the countries in which they formed a minority. The Roma's lifestyle was very similar to a way of living seen especially in non-European countries. This all suggested that
the Roma issue transcended the national borders of individual States, and consequently should be addressed through the concerted action of the entire international community.
S. BEREZNY (Russian Federation) said Russia had problems with minorities but was doing everything it could to improve the situation. There were problems in other countries, notably Estonia and Latvia. Russian-speaking minorities there were in situations of concern. So-called integration programs in those countries did not involve the participation of minorities; they were programmes of assimilation. Estonian legislation deprived minorities of their citizenship. Humanitarian laws in Estonia and Lativia required fundamental change; European standards must apply for all who wanted to live within the European community.
S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said the Working Group on Minorities constituted a useful instrument for the effective implementation of the Declaration on Minority Rights, which Sri Lanka supported for several reasons. Sri Lanka had made major efforts to preserve the multi-cultural nature of its society, its cohesiveness of values and richness of diversity which were so conducive to the prosperity of the nation, its sustainability of democracy, and its economic development. These efforts had been recognized by the Chairman of the Working Group. Government endeavours were open to further improvements, but represented a useful model for multi-cultural relations in a developing democracy.
Sri Lanka was firmly believed that non-violent and consultative means could and should be employed to reach agreement on the promotion and protection of minority rights in a tolerant society where democracy, pluralism and human rights prevailed.
A representative of Georgia said that equality among groups in a country would ensure peace and stability. Georgian State laws required that human dignity was respected; citizens of Georgia were equal, and they could develop their own cultures and languages. To implement Constitutional provisions and international conventions protecting the rights of minorities, appropriate machinery had been set up.
Questions of the rights of minorities living in the territories of the former Soviet Union should be explored at the international level.
HASSAN E. TALIB (Sudan) said the Constitution of Sudan stipulated equality of all people in rights and duties regardless of race, sex, or religious creed. The right to religious freedom was also a Constitutional right. The law provided for ensuring equality between all individuals and minorities of society to contribute to the enjoyment of all human rights by all members, and to guarantee access to resources on a basis of equality. The social strategy of the Government of Sudan aimed at integrating all minorities as an essential component of a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic society, and to ensure harmony within different social groups. This included the right to declare religion or creed, and manifest the same by way of worship, education, practice, or performance of rites and ceremonies.
One of the main obstacles to this was the armed conflict in southern Sudan, and it was hoped the Subcommission would urge the international community to support the standing comprehensive cease-fire declared by the Government early this month.
ELEFTERIOS DOUVOS (Greece) said the Muslim minority in Thrace enjoyed full equality with all Greek citizens. In Thrace, the Muslim minority consisted of three separate groups, each with its own language, culture, heritage and history. In this sense, members of this minority identified with being Turks or Pomaks or Gypsies, but for legal and administrative purposes these people were not Turkish and could not be referred to as such.
As far as the so-called "Macedonian" minority in Greece was concerned, there was no such minority in Greece. There were people in Macedonia, in Northern Greece, who spoke a Slavic idiom, but they did not believe they belonged to a minority. Anyone who believed that his or her rights were violated in Greece could have free recourse to justice, and there was also recourse to the European Court of Human Rights.
ANTOANELLA IULIA MOTOC, Subcommission Alternate Expert, said the work of the Working Group on Minorities had proved most helpful and informative. All the work of the working group had been important and modern, and in the forefront of research into minorities. The issue of minority rights had re-emerged after the Cold War because the end of the Cold War marked progress in globalization and freedom. People began to search for their identities, and various kinds of collective identity developed at the local level. Progress had been made in protecting minorities, notably through the Declaration of 1992.
Today, Ms. Motoc said, the question posed was whether the issues contained in the Declaration could not become a Convention, since there was need for a binding and yet voluntary instrument on the issue. The substantive aspects concerning the rights and obligations of minorities were unique. It was difficult to establish substantive rights for minorities, as well as a definition of the term. It was important in the area of minorities to stress that the diversity of minorities could be difficult to reconcile with the diversity of States. The procedural rights of minorities should be stressed, and dialogue should be held with the State as a means of resolving differences.
Whether the protection of human rights implied the existence of a democratic State was a new issue, arising with regard to national minorities, because the quality to participate at all levels of decision-making implied their belonging to a democratic State. Another important area, Ms. Motoc noted, was the problem of multi-culturalism, which was also a solution to the problem of minorities. The Roma minority was a minority that required a considerable amount of assistance from the international community to establish its rights and identity. A study of self-determination and its nature could prove extremely important. It was important to make distinctions between various categories of minorities.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said self-determination had been a thread throughout the discussion. Minority rights should not be used as a basis for independence. The causes of current outbursts and ethnic identities needed to be explored. Was globalization a factor? Competing identities could come in to play in such a discussion.
Concerning a definition of "minorities", some criteria were needed. The term "minority" could be defined as a group of people who felt they belonged together and felt they were threatened with regard to the preservation of their culture, practice of their religion, etc. Minority rights should not be used as a pretext for gender discrimination. Indigenous groups might, in some cases, avail themselves of minority protection, but this needed further discussion.
Democracy, especially in its early stages, was not a very good way of protecting minority rights; a country needed to be stable first. Regarding international participation by minorities, the Subcommission was one arena where that was already happening. Regarding the question of reverse minorities, as with the Pandits in Kashmir, this was also an important issue. Religious intolerance was a matter of increasing concern.