SUBCOMMISSION EXPERTS DEBATE EFFECTIVENESS, PROPRIETY OF INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION IN HUMAN RIGHTS CRISES

MORNING


HR/SC/99/6
5 August 1999





The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights heard a series of statements this morning from its experts on the subject of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms anywhere in the world. Among other things, they debated whether or not it was proper or effective for the United Nations or other international bodies, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to intervene in the affairs of sovereign States when massive and flagrant violations of human rights were occurring.

Subcommission Expert Ahmed Khalifa said the war that had engulfed Bosnia and its sequel in Kosovo, waged to stop ethnic cleansing, had ended with “political cleansing”. When NATO said it would intervene, Mr. Khalifa remarked, it was clear right away that the world needed a correct definition of the word “humanitarian”.

Similarly, Alternate Expert Zhong Shukong termed the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia a massive violation of human rights and said NATO’s 78 days and nights of bombing, unleashed in the name of protecting human rights and under the pretext of humanitarian intervention, had proved to be an appalling humanitarian disaster.

A different opinion was expressed by Subcommission Expert Marc Bossuyt, who said the international community could not be condemned to remain an impotent spectator on the sidelines, watching massive and flagrant violations of human rights -- that a state of necessity should at least exist to allow it to bring aid to those who were in immediate danger for their lives. Mr. Bossuyt contended that the intervention in Kosovo had come too late -- that if the international community had managed to stop the prevailing Serbian policy in the province earlier, then an inconceivable amount of human suffering could have been avoided.

Subcommission Expert Erica-Irene A. Daes also said the international community could not be indifferent in the face of gross and systematic violations of human rights, while Asbjorn Eide, another expert, remarked that if there was great apprehension about military actions such as that taken by NATO in the Kosovo case, what had happened showed what could result unless a Government was prepared to make the necessary concessions to allow minority groups to develop their own identities and to have reasonable local autonomy.

Expert Joseph Oloka-Onyango attacked the subject from a different angle, pointing out that conflicts in Africa of similar or greater seriousness than that in Kosovo had been largely ignored by the international community.

The remarks of Subcommission members followed a long series of statements yesterday by non-governmental organizations and country representatives under the Subcommission’s agenda item on the question of human-rights violations in any country.

Other experts or alternate experts to speak this morning were Sang Yong Park, Halima Embarek Warzazi, David Weissbrodt, Francoise Jane Hampson, Alberto Diaz Uribe, and Teimuraz O. Ramishvili.

The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. and is expected to conclude its debate on the question of human-rights violations in any country.

Statements

AHMAD KHALIFA, Subcommission Expert, said the United Nations had suffered a great deal in the 1990s. The structure of human rights rested on the infrastructure of international law. The UN's role and prestige had recently shrunk. The law of nations that had taken decades to forge, was day after day giving way to the hands of the strongest. It took a war to signal the exit of an era and the begining of a new era for human rights. The war that engulfed Bosnia and its sequel in Kosovo, waged to stop ethnic cleansing, ended with political cleansing. When NATO said it would intervene, it was clear right away that the world needed a correct definition of “humanitarian”.

The worst and most severe violations were the ethnic cleansings mixed with murder, rape, expulsions and destruction. Everything else lost importance compared to that. Ethnic cleansing was just a word for genocide. It was shocking that a war waged to avert a humanitarian catastrophe had caused such misery. Maybe it was a war that had to be won at all costs. Certainly, the NATO intervention was not based just on tender feelings and morality. It was a war with a purpose. Under the slogans of human rights, a new avenue had been opened. That was imposing peace through a low-risk, high-tech war.

The right of intervention was something else that needed to be explored. NATO's decision to bypass the Security Council was avoidance. This attitude was in nobody's long-term interest, and it could become a bad international habit. Was NATO ready for intervention in other areas of the world? Some felt that NATO would spin out of control and take on a world mission. The new image of NATO as a super entity could accentuate the superiority complex it already suffered from. Kosovo was a nightmare that should never be repeated again. The case of Kosovo should and would remain unique.

Was the Kosovo adventure worth the risk? Would stability be restored and preserved in the Balkans? In the face of such outrageous, massive human-rights violations, maybe international intervention seemed merited. Nonetheless, when a system was trampled on so forcefully, it seemed time to put in new regulations. Kosovo, it was hoped, would remain a white elephant.

SANG YONG PARK, Subcommission Expert, said the past twelve months had to be viewed with mixed feelings. On the one hand, there had been progress, a consolidation of the universality of human rights, and the development of the institutional machinery necessary to advance its cause. A great deal had been achieved during the past five decades. On the other hand, more attention would need to be focused on the area of economic, social and cultural rights, and on the right to development.

There was a darker side to recent history. The past year had continued to witness not only grave violations of human rights, but also the further spread of poverty, illiteracy and social exclusion in a number of countries. Reports on racism, discrimination, abductions, bombings, murders, terror, massacres, religious clashes and ethnic conflicts, to name only a few, were truly alarming, and remained so. Of all the human-rights situations of concern in recent months, none was more visible or more grave than the Kosovo situation. The international community should continue to assist the Kosovo refugees and make concerted efforts to ensure that there were no revenge attacks or ethnic expulsions.

The new millennium was an opportunity to pause, and to reflect. It should be stated by the international community that in the new era there would be no more genocide, no more ethnic conflict, no more killings, no more refugees. It should be recognized that international concern was at best only latent in several parts of the world that were composed of multi-ethnic and multi-religious nations. Asia and Africa had not received sufficient attention. Several conflict zones around the world now possessed the latent possibility of exploding into war zones or into complex emergencies. The responsibility of the United Nations was to develop and implement early warning systems and preventive measures at national, regional and international levels. Conflict prevention, rather than conflict amelioration, was of first and foremost importance, and should be given the highest priority.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission Expert, said the recently deceased King Hassan II of Morocco was the father of his nation, and had expended every effort to ensure that his people would have prestige, prosperity and liberty, thanks to a constant dialogue with his people. His son, King Mohamed VI, had committed himnself to following the path blazed by his father, a path with the goal of bringing Morocco fully into the third millennium thanks to open policies, modernity whilst respecting tradition, protection of all human rights and reinforcement of the rule of law.

The historical path that brought along the Declaration of the Rights of Man and a series of mechanisms designed to respond to the aspirations of all peoples, seemed today to be bogged down in a morass of responsibilities, such as that of the promotion of the ideals of peace, justice, tolerance, peaceful co-existence and liberty. At the dawn of the third millennium, there was an increase in violence in its most extreme and aberrant forms, such as terrorism. National ethnic and religious extremism were taking more and more victims, and xenophobia and racism were spreading. The world was breaking out into armed conflicts which threatened the world’s hopes for the third millennium.

The use of force had become banal, and recent events, especially over the last few months, could only cause grave worries among vulnerable peoples. Following humanitarian intervention, what was required was the defence of minorities. The thirst for justice, equality and satisfaction of the most basic needs was being felt more and more strongly. All human beings aspired to a roof, a source of revenue, an education for their children, and security. Those who wanted to realize this dream at all costs were exposed to many risks, including death. More than ever, it was becoming obvious that democracy and human rights were intimately linked to development and even global development. Democracy and human rights were threatened in many places, and these challenges should be faced.

JOSEPH OLOKA-ONYANGO, Subcommission Expert, said there was an old saying that "Charity begins at home." It was as strong a belief that critical comment and censorship must follow the same route. Uganda had suffered numerous abusive regimes while the world was largely silent, but its people felt eternal gratitude to those who had had the strength to declare that enough was enough -- even when sometimes the declarations were too little and often too late. Thus, if people were genuine in their commitment to the cause of human rights, they must never allow violations to take place in their own backyards. These comments would start at home. The focus in Africa should be on the right to peace. This theme was chosen because it was the most vital human-rights issue of the day, and simultaneously it was not regarded by many theorists as a serious or concrete human right. And yet, nearly six decades after the world fought the war to end all wars that ended in 1945, the most basic and fundamental of human rights were not realized. What was worse, the right to peace was becoming ever the more elusive for ever increasing numbers of humankind, particularly in Africa.

Africa was a continent at war with itself. It was also a continent that was at war within itself. At the same time, it was as if the continent was also at war with the rest of the world. This latter war might not be a military one, but it was a war that was every bit as damaging. It was a war of denial and neglect. If the war that was going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo were taking place in any other part of the world, it would surely be regarded as a world war. Similarly, the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea had pitted two erstwhile allies in a life-sucking combat of death and destruction. And yet most commentary had focused on the war's sheer senseless inexplicability. Very little had been said about the massive toll
of human lives on both sides. It was as if the international community did not know that these wars were even taking place. Contrast this reaction to the reaction following events in Kosovo. This was the epitome of denial and neglect.

The fact that Africa's wars were fought largely with weapons from outside the continent brought questions about the connection of contemporary conditions existing outside the continent to the events that were taking place within it. Racism today was also responsible for a great deal of denial and neglect -- people of colour continued to experience such denial and neglect both on the continent and off it. Racism was not simply a series of "increasing incidents," such as the decapitation of James Byrd Jr. on a remote Texas road, or the death of Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo shot by the New York police. Indeed, there should be speeches about institutional racism because it was the same phenomenon which dictated that a Kosovo refugee should receive four times as many rations as his or her African counterpart in a Tanzanian camp from the very same agency -- the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

MARC BOSSUYT, Subcommission Expert, said the event of the year in the context of human rights was undoubtedly the Kosovo conflict. The intervention of the international community had brought up many questions and issues which could be summarized as follows: was the reaction justified and appropriate? This question was of vital importance for international relations in general and human rights in particular. If the international community had managed to stop the Serbian policy earlier, then an inconceivable amount of human suffering and destruction of possessions and lives could have been avoided. The international community had interfered too late.

The international community could not be condemned to remaining an impotent spectator on the sidelines, watching massive and flagrant violations of human rights. A state of necessity should at least exist so as to allow it to bring aid to those who were in immediate danger for their lives or their physical integrity. However, the methods of intervention used raised questions about the legitimacy and especially the legality of the action. The judicial bases of the humanitarian intervention were reinforced by the fact that it directly stopped the perpetration of massive human-rights violations.

There was a similar situation in several other areas of the world, notably Burundi, where the peace process was finally slowly moving forward. Much work remained to be done in the area. The time had come to submit the regional mediation process exercised in Burundi to a critical evaluation. The situation in Indonesia was cheering, and everything should be done so that improvement there continued.

ERICA-IRENE A. DAES, Subcommission Expert, said the international community could not be indifferent in the face of gross and systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of relevant international human-rights instruments and humanitarian laws were the primary responsibilities of States. All States were accountable to the international community for respecting the international rules and humanitarian standards they had adopted. Violations of human rights were a legitimate concern of the world community and it was the duty of every human-rights expert or human-rights defender to address and condemn such abuses and to strive for the protection and restoration of human rights.

The greatest threat to human rights were war and armed conflict. The greatest most numerous victims were innocent civilians, including children, women, elderly, the sick, indigenous peoples, minorities and refugees. This had been the case with the internal conflict in Kosovo, which had resulted in disproportionate use of force on the part of the Yugoslav authorities, widespread loss of life, human suffering and forced displacement of the population. On the basis that the conflict could not be permitted to continue because of the massive, gross violations of human rights involved, NATO began a bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The whole world community was deeply disturbed over the tragic consequences of the conflict. Refugees, missing persons, children, women and the elderly had been mistreated in the most inhuman manner.

There was another armed conflict in which innocent civilians were paying the price, a 36-year-old civil war in Colombia. Since 1977, 27 human rights defenders had been slain in Colombia, five of them this year. One of them was a great human-rights defender and a fighter for the protection of the rights of the world's indigenous peoples. That was Ingrid Washiwatok. The crisis confronting human rights activists in Colombia had impeded their work at a time when Colombia's rural population was being subjected to an increasing number of atrocities and other war-related hardships.

It also was necessary to pay attention to the human-rights implications of economic embargoes, and to human-rights abuses in Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey.

DAVID WEISSBRODT, Subcommission Expert, said there were a number of countries and country situations which had been overlooked by the Commission on Human Rights and elsewhere in the United Nations system for a number of reasons. A more open dialogue with the United Nations on the human-rights situation was required. There had been improvements in several of these nations. Recent changes of Government and hope for further progress in these countries might help to ensure a future where human rights were observed and protected. There continued, however, to be reason for concern in many other countries.

There were problems with the human-rights situation in Indonesia, Togo, Belarus, Peru, Tibet, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea. The Subcommission should take effective steps to promote human rights with respect to the situations in these countries and others. It would not be possible to take action on all the relevant situations, but the principal task of the Subcommission was to devote its attention to matters that were not considered by its parent body, the Commission on Human Rights. The Subcommission could consider resolutions on thematic issues through which countries were mentioned by way of example.

By combining thematic and country-specific concerns, the Subcommission would be able to produce work which drew upon the unique expertise of the body, as well as maintaining a focus relevant to the real world. The Subcommission should devote its attention to situations of conflict, as well as to new areas of human-rights advocacy, such as the relationship between human rights and the activities of transnational businesses. He was optimistic that the Subcommission had an important contribution to make in relation to both thematic and country-specific human-rights concerns.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said some situations arose from deep-seated conflicts where Government had been unable or unwilling to find appropriate accommodation in a democratic and pluralistic way, or where the opposition was making impossible demands, or where there was intransigence on both sides. The serious conflicts in Mexico had been noted. It needed to come to grips with the legacy of dispossession there and ways to overcome it. It was very much to be hoped that a process of change could take place in which the rights of the indigenous to their land and to local autonomy could be fully recognized.

Local autonomy was very different from secession. Some of the situations drawn to the attention of the Subcommission were due to serious conflicts arising between a central Government and an ethnic group living in the same country The origin of the conflict might well be due to a hegemonic policy pursued by the central Government, denying the right of other ethnic groups to preserve and develop their identities and to have proper local democratic control over their own territories. The tragic situation of Kosovo was known, where the ethnic Albanians were deprived of their established autonomy and of their own educational institutions. Similarly, the Kurdish people in Turkey had for a very long time, and even to a greater extent, been deprived of their right to develop their own identity and use their language, let alone their own institutions, and the very idea of a Kurdish university was probably an anathema to the Kemalist ideology prevailing in Turkey. Consequently, violence and serious violations occurred -- and there was no way out unless basic policy was changed in line with modern thinking on group accommodation and minority rights.

The use of force was not a good way to solve these situations, whether the force came from the Government, the minority group, or the international community. There was great apprehension about military actions such as that taken by NATO in the Kosovo case, and it was hoped that similar actions would not be undertaken unless specifically and explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council. But what had happened in Kosovo showed what could occur unless a Government was prepared to make the necessary concessions to allow minority groups to develop their own identities and to have reasonable local autonomy within the wider setting of a common State with due respect for human rights for all.

It was also to be hoped that the authority of the United Nations could be restored. The UN could, if it functioned properly, develop a comprehensive and balanced approach to the global realization of human rights, taking into account the obstacles on all the levels that had been discussed today. When addressing situations of gross violations, the UN and its agencies, such as the Subcommission, could help the societies concerned to heal their wounds, to develop and sustain an impartial and pluralistic state of law and order and to prevent the problems posed by conflict entrepreneurs, militant nationalists and religious fanatics who sought to control the instruments of law and order.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission Expert, said the law of armed conflict did not address the resort to armed force. It regulated the conduct of hostilities, in order to protect those not fighting from unnecessary or avoidable harm, and it sought to protect the victims of war. The ethical principle underlying the law would appear to require a strategy and choice of target related to the goals of the conflict. The stance of the international community in this field was marked by extraordinary selectivity and what amounted to discrimination. It was not acceptable for the international community to do nothing when massive human-rights violations were occurring in a State, when these were planned and organized by the State. However, only in situations in which massive human-rights violations were occurring, would it be necessary to resort to armed force as a matter of last resort.

The threshold of a new millennium was a time for going the extra mile, for making the extra effort to create the space for political dialogue, for recognizing the legitimacy of peaceful disagreement, whilst taking effective action against the use of force, and for making an extra effort to find a solution. International supervision of the implementation of human-rights commitments was secondary, or residual. The primary obligation was that of the State, which was the body that should carry out effective investigations into alleged human-rights violations. The State should provide an effective national remedy.

The Subcommission and other parts of the United Nations human-rights machinery should address the implementation in practice of States obligations, but this was a secondary responsibility. The responsibility for this implementation lay in the hands of the States. They should provide effective national redress, with no scope for blanket amnesties with regard to serious violations of the laws and customs of war nor for gross and systematic violations of human rights. Implementation of human rights required an end to impunity.

ALBERTO DIAZ URIBE, Subcommission Alternate Expert, said it was striking how certain nations had decided on their own that the history of mankind had come to a halt. Some claimed to be the policeman of the world, but what they really were were protectors of their own interests. There was a situation in which everyone decided on their own when, where, why and how their obligations should be determined and exercised.

There was a clear and valid concern that regional and international bodies formed to protect human rights were losing their ability to act. In Colombia, there was a serious human-rights crisis. So far this year, 185 massacres had taken place in which 847 had been killed. This was equivalent to the entire 1996 level, and the situation was getting worse daily. There was every indication that the situation was moving fast toward foreign military intervention. There would be serious consequences. With regard to human rights, any foreign intervention would make the situation even more difficult. It would shatter the democratic system, which might not have been perfect, but at least it was Colombia's. It was through more constructive dialogue with international bodies that Colombia would make things better.

TEIMURAZ O. RAMISHVILI , Subcommission Expert, said the situation in the field of human rights was rather contradictory, with achievements on the one hand for individual countries and for the international community. On the other hand, human rights continued to be violated on a massive scale, force was used in an international context, and the Security Council was being ignored. This was inevitable if the world became mono-polar and one country could impose its will on the international community. The world had many characters, each country had its own interests, brought about by the specific features of its development and history. For this reason, the United Nations was the only forum for bringing together the interests of all countries, and not those of military blocs. It was only in the framework of the United Nations that it was possible to find solutions acceptable to all countries to the problems facing the world community.

If one country were allowed to use armed force as it saw fit, then the world would move towards chaos and anarchy. No bloc or country should be allowed to come to the fore exclusively. Humanitarian intervention was a positive event in some contexts, since human rights were not exclusively the internal affairs of States. However, it should not lead to the murder of innocent people, nor be accompanied by mass and flagrant human-rights violations. All States should observe the United Nations Charter, the basic international treaty. This was the only way for peace to develop in today’s society, on the eve of the third millennium. States should double and triple their efforts to ensure implementation of all articles of the Charter.

The Subcommission should take measures to ensure that States were encouraged to ratify both human-rights covenants and the basic human-rights, thus bringing them under the control of the United Nations. There were still gross, flagrant and systematic human-rights violations taking place across the world, and it was towards their elimination that the Subcommission should work, whilst remaining objective. Questions concerning human rights should be depoliticized and de-ideologized. Measures should be taken to draw all countries into a dialogue. The Subcommission should be a truly expert body, and its decisions should be guided exclusively by expert knowledge. It should provide expert conclusions that were free from any political bias.

ZHONG SHUKONG, Subcommission Alternate Expert, said a massive violation of human rights had occurred. The wanton bombing of a small sovereign State had gone on for 78 days and nights before it was stopped. These wanton air attacks, which were unleashed in the name of protecting human rights and under the pretext of humanitarian intervention, had proved to be an appalling humanitarian disaster.

There was another serious menace to the lives of the innocent people of various ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. This was the menace of unexploded cluster bombs left over from the 78-day-and-night bombing in different parts of Yugoslavia, including areas where schools were located.