SUBCOMMISSION ON PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLETES DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ANYWHERE IN WORLD

AFTERNOON

HR/SC/99/7
5 August 1999





The Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights concluded its review this afternoon of alleged violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any country by listening to a long string of rights of reply from nations defending their human-rights records.

Several Subcommission Experts also spoke. One of them, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, contended that on the subject of human rights, the world had gone topsy-turvy, with countries that claimed to be adamant about defending the United Nations Charter also advocating -- by their actions -- violations of international law. As an example he cited the 78-day bombing campaign carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, noting the attacks had not received the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council. In such cases of supposed “humanitarian intervention”, he said, the bombs never fell on New York, London, Paris or the Hague.

Antonella Iulia Motoc, a Subcommittee Alternate Expert, said that all countries should have the right to exert control over their territories, and to deal with internal conflicts.

And Expert Rajenda Kalidas Wimala Goonesekere said it was important to find a way to lay out the moral case for a suitable humanitarian intervention. He added that it was even more important that such interventions didn’t make bad situations worse.

The following Governments spoke in exercise of the right of reply: Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Morocco, Nepal, Indonesia, Iraq, India, Colombia, Turkey, Belarus and Bhutan.

The Subcommission will meet in closed session at 10 a.m. Friday, 6 August, to discuss methods of work. It will next convene in plenary session at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 10 August, to discuss the elimination of racial discrimination.

Statements

MIGEUEL ALFONOSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission Expert, said even the most noble human-rights issues could be used fpr ideological ends by who-knew-who. Everything was possible in this topsy-turvy world. Those defending the UN Charter sometimes claimed that breaches of the international legal order were justified. It was a topsy-turvy world because many analysts of international law were now jumping on the band wagon of those advocating the total disappearance of international law. In this upside-down world, the most far-fetched arguments and reasons were used, such as death by friendly fire. So-called humanitarian intervention gave the same impression as hearing someone talk about discreet torture -- somehow the adjective overshadowed the noun. When humanitarian intervention was talked about, where were the grounds for intervention, according to the UN Charter?

Before the bombing of Kosovo, it was said there were 100,000 individuals who were ethnically cleansed. After the bombing, there were 800,000 individuals who tried to get away. The Security Council, it was said, was not consulted because it was throught the Security Council would not approve the NATO intervention. The use of humanitarian intervention was something that should be looked at very carefully. Nobody was talking about the sovereignty of the United States. Nobody was talking about dropping bombs on New York, Paris, London or the Hague. Those affected by such measures were in the Third World.

ANTONELLA IULIA MOTOC, Alternate Expert, said that in terms of the sociology of a human-rights discourse, there was a demand for effectiveness in human rights. This was due to numerous violations. Many individuals today were living in circumstances of massive violations of human rights. The standards were evident. The international community needed to focus on the reality of the situation and its lack of power to implement those standards. There was a need to rebuild confidence in the standards and in the importance of human rights.

Human rights should be applicable at the same level across the globe. A relativist stance on human rights was dangerous. The respect for human rights on a universal level was a way of sharing policy on a universal basis. It was impossible to live together without rights and law. Human rights and the sovereignty of States sometimes were in conflict. There was universality of human rights, and at the same time there was massive violation of human rights. The status of human-rights standards was important, since without them it was impossible for the international community to survive.

States today were having to deal with an incontestable weakness. They were no longer capable of exerting control over their territories. Any State should be able to deal with internal conflicts. When a legal universal solution was found, the smallest possible State would be able to deal with ethnic conflicts. The international community was reacting excessively to the situation. The question today was one of limits of power. It was difficult to find international machinery to limit power.

RAJENDA KALIDAS WIMALA GOONESEKERE, Subcommission Expert, said the concept of an international human-rights law did not mean that national sovereignty should be displaced. What was important was that the moralities of international intervention be laid out. A bad situation could lead to another bad situation if there was intervention; that was not the way to handle human rights in a country. Experience had shown that promises and assurances that only military targets would be attacked were no guarantee that civilians and civilian institutions would not be damaged.

It was really a question of proportion. There must now be some concern voiced and action taken to ensure and guarantee that only the most unfortunate situations would be dealt with, and in such a way as not to make a bad situation worse.

LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission Expert, said the situation in Algeria would hopefully improve, but the crucial process to be embarked upon was one of reconciliation. The situation was all the more difficult in a country where bitterness was so deeply rooted. It was hoped that reforms in Bahrain would continue, and that the relevant report would be implemented. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had an interesting record. Dialogue had begun. This would cause greater understanding, which was constructive. However, much remained to be done, although the first difficult step had been taken. The situation in Belarus had not improved.

In Mexico, the situation remained volatile, and efforts should continue to improve it. The Subcommission was not a Parliament, and the NGOs were not behaving appropriately. They should not include members of Parliament in their delegations unless there was a special case. Many allegations had been put forward by NGOs, and as usual there was debate about the reliabilty of these allegations. How the Subcommission should address fundamental matters in the 21st century should be addressed. Globalization should be further examined. An updating of terms such as the "right to self-determination" should be undertaken. Humanitarian intervention as assistance or interference should also be re-examined.

Statements in right of reply

BIABAROH-IBRORO (Republic of the Congo), speaking in right of reply, said the League of Human Rights had proved its lack of knowledge of the socio-political situation in the Congo, and its bad faith. It was strange that it reiterated the same generalities that had already been repeated so many times, when the situation had changed. There was no ethnic cleansing in the Congo. The press was not muzzled. It was only possible to deplore the desire of the warmongers to plunge the Congo into chaos by acts of violence and terrorism. The civil war in the Congo had been caused by civil authorities who had now gone. The new head of State and Government had called for peace, and had committed themselves to protecting Congolese soil from all assailants. All means would be implemented to stop the pernicious and destructive war that had destroyed innocent populations.

FAROOQ HASSAN (Pakistan), speaking in right of reply, said Pakistan had been the target once again of Government organized NGOs (GONGOs), which had demonstrated their total lack of regard for all legitimate human-rights concerns. They were not interested in human rights and had been unleashed against Pakistan as propaganda instruments of the Government of India. They had made political statements against Pakistan that bore no relevance to the item under discussion in the Subcommission, and had tried to erode the fundamental legality of the struggle of the Kashmiri people for self-determination. The reality of the grave situation of human rights in Kashmir was well known. The international community had ignored the Kashmir tragedy for too long. Pakistan continued to press India to resume early dialogue with a view to promoting a just and genuine solution to the Kashmir dispute on the basis of the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people.

NACER BENJELLOUN-TOUIMI (Morocco), speaking in right of reply, said a specific NGO had described the situation of human rights in Morocco in an erroneous fashion, based on lies and untruths, not to say in violent and surreal terms. Morocco had undergone an incredible evolution in its state of human rights. The phenomenon of "disappeared" people was an issue of the past, even if some of the effects of these events continued to have repercussions. The previous "disappeared" had been guaranteed moral and material redress by the law of the country. Morocco would continue to cooperate with the Working Group on forced disappearances to bring light to the subject and bring an end to all allegations on the issue. Morocco would continue to cooperate with the United Nations on this issue and others.

SHAMBHU RAM SIMKADA (Nepal), speaking in right of reply, said Bhutanese refugees had been forced to live in Nepalese camps for many years now. Nepal was committed to serious negotiations with Bhutan on the matter. Nepal was ready to work with Bhutan, but a scheduled January 1999 meeting had not taken place until today. Little progress had come of efforts to resolve the crisis. The recently concluded general elections clearly reflected the agenda of the Nepalese Government. The situation with the refugees was real, and no amount of linguistic acrobatics would change that. Settlement of the problem was one of the main priorities of Nepalese foreign policy. The refugees should be able to return home in safety and dignity.

LUCIA RUSTAM (Indonesia), speaking in right of reply, said that what tended to be forgotten was the context in which human-rights violations occurred. In response to terrorist acts, killings and intimidations since the early 1990s, the Government of Indonesia had conducted legitimate military operations in order to maintain its territorial integrity and political unity. However, as in any armed conflict situation, violations of human rights were apt to occur. The biased observations stated before the Subcommission blamed the Government while ignoring the horrible, violent acts perpetrated by rebel groups. In order to address the root causes of the problem, the Government had taken major policy measures. In contrast to the policy of dialogue and reconciliation promoted by the Government, the armed separatist groups continued to use violence. The Indonesian Government was always open to expressions of concerns about human-rights violations and efforts to redress the,, but strongly rejected any expression of political support for the cause of separatism under a human-rights pretext.

MOHAMOUD TAHA (Iraq), speaking in right of reply, said yesterday Interfaith International had made charges against Iraq. The real genocide in Iraq resulted from the economic embargo imposed on the country for ten years, which had left over 1.5 million victims, and from American and British bombardment of the country. If the person had any credibility and objectivity, he would have mentioned and denounced these atrocities. The exposure to uranium in munitions fired on Iraq had affected people, causing cancer and even harming embryos. Again, that should have been mentioned. The Iraqi Constitution guaranteed all religious rights, and it protected all holy places no matter where they were found in Iraq. Iraq wished to maintain its national unity and would face down any attempts to divide it.

RAJESH PRASAD (India), speaking in right of reply, said the remarks made about the situation in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir did not accord with the reality on the ground. The root cause of the situation was the proxy war waged by Pakistan, which had nurtured territorial ambitions on the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan's proxy war and sponsorship of state terrorism for more than a decade had been responsible for violations of human rights by terrorists aided and abetted by Pakistan. This policy had caused untold misery and had posed a serious challenge to the democratic, secular and pluralistic fabric of Indian society. The phenomenon of terrorism was a major challenge that confronted the world today, and India had in particular been the victim of some of its most brutal manifestations. The country’s independent judiciary, National Human Rights Commission, state-level Human Rights Commissions and an active and vigilant civil society provided ample guarantees of the promotion and protection of the human rights of all citizens in India.

CAMILO REYES RODRIQUEZ (Colombia), speaking in right of reply, said the Colombian Government had used its best efforts to try to ensure basic rights and freedoms. It had committed considerable resources to that end. The State condemned the attacks against and murder of those who gave their lives to the defence of human rights. Actions were being undertaken to offer protection to people in judicial proceedings -- to jurists and witnesses. For individual protection of human-rights defenders, there would soon be a programme that provided security, bodyguards and bullet-proof vests. Prevention measures through self-protection training were being developed. The Subcommission could be sure of the commitment Colombia had made to save the lives of those who were there to protect human rights.

BULENT MERIC (Turkey) said in right of reply that the Subcommission's criticism was focused on alleged impunity accorded to officials, alleged perpetrators of human-rights violations. The claim was utterly unacceptable. Every conscientious observer should have noted that particularly over the last five years, successive Turkish Governments, cognizant of their shortcomings, had exhibited a strong political will to overcome them. As for the assertion that there was an armed conflict in Turkey, it should be reiterated that what Turkey faced was not an armed conflict in the sense of 1949 Conventions but merciless terrorism which was even aimed at the community whose rights it claimed to be defending. On the so-called Kurdish minority, Turkey was a multi-ethnic country composed of various sub-cultures, where the individual rights of each and every citizen were guaranteed, regardless of ethnic background. The Turkish Government was fully aware of the ethnic diversity within the nation and recognized the right of all citizens to express freely their cultural differences.

SERGEI ANOSHKO (Belarus), speaking in right of reply, said the position of the Belarus Government with respect to human rights was that they were indivisible and interdependent, and the Government of Belarus saw defence of human rights as its primary task. Belarus today was a country of inter-ethnic peace where the crime rate was low. It was no accident that it was seen as a safe haven for refugees from other nations. Not everything was perfect, however. Individual violations of human rights could not, however, be seen as State policy. Human rights and double standards were two separate things. Belarus was ready for a dialogue on the subject. Belarus was holding no person for his political activities, only for violations of existing legislation. The situation of human rights in Belarus was not as grave as had been reported.

KINGA SINAYE (Bhutan), speaking in right of reply, said the delegation regretted that the representative of Nepal had blamed Bhutan for the failure to hold the Eighth Ministerial Joint Committee meeting. What had prevented the meeting from taking place was the collapse of the tenuous Nepalese Government. The assertion that there was a total lack of interest shown by Bhutan in solving the refugee situation was incorrect. One of the most serious impediments to the progress of the bilateral negotiations had been the frequent changes of Government in Nepal and the resultant changes in position on the issue by successive Governments. Bhutan hoped that Nepal would find a suitable time to host a meeting in the very near future as the last several rounds of bilateral meetings had been held in Bhutan's capital.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), in a second right of reply, said the Indian statement was not a pack of lies, but it was full of inexactitudes of the grossest nature. Kashmir was not an Indian state, it was a disputed territory. The United Nations considered it a disputed territory. A proxy war could not be waged for over ten years. The crackdowns in Kashmir were conducted by the Indian army on the Kashmiri people. When it came to terrorism, India had written the book. In Kashmir, India had mastered the black art of terrorism. Since at least 1995, India had subcontracted some of its powers to groups with no accountability. These groups had pulled off many human-rights abuses. If India was a democracy, it should let the Kashmiri people to decide their own future.

SHAMBHU SIMKADA (Nepal) in a second right to reply, said all successive Governments in Nepal had taken the same position where the Bhutanese refugees were concerned, and all political parties had the same approach on the matter of the refugees. There always had been a standing invitation to Bhutan to join in dialogue on the matter.